3 ms·
Wishing Apple did something differently does not make it so. Either you accept the stable interface for what it is or you accept your binaries may break. And yo
by ChrisSD 6y ago
Wishing Apple did something differently does not make it so. Either you accept the stable interface for what it is or you accept your binaries may break. And you've only yourself to "blame" in the latter case.
- mhh__ 6y agoI don't have to blame anyone because I don't own any Apple products, what I'm getting at is that Apple's "Minimal Documentation, force through our blessed channels" way of going about things is kind of remarkable given that microsoft have been absolutely slammed for similar actions in the past.
- my123 6y agoBSDs traditionally don't have a stable syscall ABI. Windows never had a stable syscall ABI either. Almost only Linux does it... because the kernel and libc are maintained as separate projects in the Linux world.
- mhh__ 6y agoI don't really do OS development so I was mostly using this as a microcosm of the wider practice. Practically as long as it's trivially callable from C I'm not bothered.
- littlestymaar 6y ago> Almost only Linux does it... because the kernel and libc are maintained as separate projects in the Linux world. That's because Linux is just that: a kernel. And people are free to build their userspace on top of it.
- seg_lol 6y agoSystemd should also be the libc provider.
- trasz 6y agoFreeBSD does have a stable syscall ABI. But it's not _the_ stable ABI people should be using; the advertised stable ABI is the libc.