4 ms·
Maybe using Nix it's a better experience for creating such an environment where you depending also on system utilities.
by pablo1107 4y ago
Maybe using Nix it's a better experience for creating such an environment where you depending also on system utilities.
- superkuh 4y agoEveryone is using llama.cpp because we reject the idea of giving up on system libraries like nix does. That kind of tomfoolery (at least in the desktop context) is only required when you use software projects that use libraries/languages which break forwards compatibility every 3 years. If you just write straight c++ (without c++xx, or anything like it) you can compile the code on machines from decades ago if you want.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- remexre 4y agoWhat's c++xx?
- opless 4y agoC++11, and greater.
- remexre 4y agoHuh, I was proficient in Rust before "properly" learning C++, so maybe that accounts for it, but I didn't realize C++11 was controversial. Is it just move semantics, or are there some library things that are hard to implement?
- int_19h 4y agoI think what OP is saying is that decades-old systems wouldn't have C++11-compatible compilers on them.
- bboygravity 4y agoAnd maybe that "C++" is now basically a bunch of different incompatible languages instead of just 1 language, depending on what "xx" is (11, 14, 17, 20, 23, etc). It's like Python 2 vs Python 3 except even worse.
- int_19h 4y agoIn my experience, C++03 code works just fine without changes on a C++11 and C++14 compilers, so no, it's not at all like Python 2/3. The few features that were ripped out were exactly the stuff that pretty much no-one was using for good reasons (e.g. throw-specifications).