4 ms·
> It's not a dearth of better options that causes C folks to clutch their autotools and bash scripts and punting-altogether-on-dependency-management; we've had
by asguy 6y ago
> It's not a dearth of better options that causes C folks to clutch their autotools and bash scripts and punting-altogether-on-dependency-management; we've had better options for decades.
I build and package golang/Python/rust/C/C++ binaries using GNU make, bash, and Debian's tooling. I have dependency management, parallel builds, and things are reproducible. I do it that way, because I need a glue that will deploy to VMs, containers, bare metal, whatever. I don't use it because I'm scared of other tooling. I use it because I haven't seen a better environment for getting software I work on, into heterogeneous environments.
I'm not attached to the old way; I'm attached to ways that I can be productive with.
- throwaway894345 6y agoMy point is that reproducible builds in Go and Rust are much, much easier than C and C++ (and Python since everything depends on C and C++). If your C and C++ programs are building easily (including their direct and transitive dependencies), then you're almost certainly not doing truly reproducible builds (or perhaps you're just very, very familiar with your particular dependency tree in a way that doesn't generalize to arbitrary trees). To be clear, I'm not arguing that there are better tools for working around C/C++'s build ecosystem; I'm arguing that our lives will be better when we minimize our dependencies on those ecosystems.