3 ms·

The library did make a choice - header-only C libraries are a choice. And the "how you are supposed to distribute a C library" is clearly just your own opinion

The library did make a choice - header-only C libraries are a choice. And the "how you are supposed to distribute a C library" is clearly just your own opinion you are trying to pass as objective truth. There are many header-only C libraries out there written by many experienced programmers that contradict your opinions. TBH this is really just bikeshedding, not real issues. IMO even a tab-vs-spaces argument would have more merit as that has real practical effects (appearance of the code in tools like terminal or sites that have forced tabs like code review sites or github).

linkdd 4y ago
There are billions of flies who eat shit. Therefore, shit should be edible? The "numbers argument" is a fallacious one. No, "how you are supposed to distribute a C library" is not my opinion, but the experience/observations of the last 50 years of engineering. Why would we even have a .so/.a/.lib/.dll format for libraries? As I said in a sibling comment, those are not header-only libraries. It's poorly packaged .c/.h in a single file that we happened to name with the .h extension. It's not a header, it's a header+implementation. And it's bad practice, and any decent C developer will tell you so.