6 ms·

It does seem that 'modern' idioms tend to just be doing the same thing in a more obfuscated manner. Just a .c/.h pair would have been easier to add to your sour

by veltas 5y ago

It does seem that 'modern' idioms tend to just be doing the same thing in a more obfuscated manner. Just a .c/.h pair would have been easier to add to your source.

NavinF 5y ago
That would be easier if the most popular build systems weren’t terrible
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Or I don't know, people actually bothered to learn them.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Learning something doesn't stop it being terrible. One time I ran `cmake`, and forgot to run `sudo -k` beforehand. It reconfigured my system.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      That has more to do with sudo than cmake.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        This might be an unpopular opinion, but compiling a program into a local directory shouldn't try to install packages globally. `make install`, I could understand doing that. I had no idea that cmake would do this, after reading quite a lot of things about cmake v.s. make and how to write various makefiles for them. I posit that the C build tools are fundamentally hard to comprehend.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Any build tool can do whatever they feel like. Blindly trusting it will lead to the same outcome, regardless of the programming language ecosytem.
        charcircuit 5y ago
        Sure, but should it? Do you really want nasal demons from your build tool?
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Due to the success of build tools like Gradle, build.rs or any other one that packages a Turing complete language to steer a build, apparently many want such daemons on their homedir.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. A `build.rs` is supposed to be for compiling non-Rust code and stuff like that, not mucking about with the package manager – and by and large, people don't use it for mucking about with the package manager.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        People use it to muck with the host OS in any possible way, unless one bothers to do the necessary code audit. Besides that was just one example, there are plenty of them with turing complete languages.
- wott 5y ago
  If the library is installed separately, the terribleness is about adding "-lfunkylib" to your linker command. If you embed the source in your project, the terribleness is about adding to your Makefile: funkylib.o: funkylib.c $(CC) $< myfinalexe: ... funkylib.o ... # your existing executable creation (linking) command
krychu 5y ago
This is a valid point. I was on the fence between doing .c/.h pair and a single .h. But finally took the inspiration from: https://github.com/nothings/stb https://github.com/nothings/stb.
- veltas 5y ago
  Overall I think the code in the library is good, this was just the thing that stuck out to me most. Congrats on getting shared on HN.

by veltas 5y ago

It does seem that 'modern' idioms tend to just be doing the same thing in a more obfuscated manner. Just a .c/.h pair would have been easier to add to your source.

NavinF 5y ago

That would be easier if the most popular build systems weren’t terrible

pjmlp 5y ago
Or I don't know, people actually bothered to learn them.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Learning something doesn't stop it being terrible. One time I ran `cmake`, and forgot to run `sudo -k` beforehand. It reconfigured my system.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    That has more to do with sudo than cmake.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      This might be an unpopular opinion, but compiling a program into a local directory shouldn't try to install packages globally. `make install`, I could understand doing that. I had no idea that cmake would do this, after reading quite a lot of things about cmake v.s. make and how to write various makefiles for them. I posit that the C build tools are fundamentally hard to comprehend.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Any build tool can do whatever they feel like. Blindly trusting it will lead to the same outcome, regardless of the programming language ecosytem.
        charcircuit 5y ago
        Sure, but should it? Do you really want nasal demons from your build tool?
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Due to the success of build tools like Gradle, build.rs or any other one that packages a Turing complete language to steer a build, apparently many want such daemons on their homedir.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. A `build.rs` is supposed to be for compiling non-Rust code and stuff like that, not mucking about with the package manager – and by and large, people don't use it for mucking about with the package manager.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        People use it to muck with the host OS in any possible way, unless one bothers to do the necessary code audit. Besides that was just one example, there are plenty of them with turing complete languages.
wott 5y ago
If the library is installed separately, the terribleness is about adding "-lfunkylib" to your linker command. If you embed the source in your project, the terribleness is about adding to your Makefile: funkylib.o: funkylib.c $(CC) $< myfinalexe: ... funkylib.o ... # your existing executable creation (linking) command

krychu 5y ago

This is a valid point. I was on the fence between doing .c/.h pair and a single .h. But finally took the inspiration from: https://github.com/nothings/stb https://github.com/nothings/stb.

veltas 5y ago
Overall I think the code in the library is good, this was just the thing that stuck out to me most. Congrats on getting shared on HN.