3 ms·

Even shops that shipped static binaries, they all still shipped containers at the end of the day to run in production. I find a lot of the static binary hand w

Even shops that shipped static binaries, they all still shipped containers at the end of the day to run in production. I find a lot of the static binary hand wringing basically: did you ever solve how to ship more than 1 file to production? Did you ever need to virtualize any resource on your compute? Then you're at a minimum using a chroot and containers. If you aren't shipping to production, if you're really just copying files around between your laptops and you want them to run - you have glibc.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
There's a big gap between what you're talking about: ship a dockerfile or snap or whatever to make your big ol' service distribution-portable vs what this article was about: writing CLI programs. The moment we end up in a world where a "small CLI program" requires docker.. I give up. Time to retire from software and go raise sheep or something instead.
- codemac 3y ago
  Thus my last sentence: if you aren't shipping to production... you are really just copying files around, and you have a glibc. I think I just use linux enough that all the macos bugs I don't experience.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    No, it sounds like you just have a mostly "I write code that goes on servers" type job, and haven't been burned by the issue of older binaries, that won't work with new libcs. This is a real problem with Linux (not MacOS or other BSDs from what I understand) because it doesn't have a stable ABI (the ABI is basically glibc). It's a design choice, and a pain in the ass for people who want to distribute things as binaries. Which, well, it's not something I do, but, it has burned me using other people's things. Could docker/containerization solve this problem? Yes, in the same way that a shotgun would serve for eliminating mosquitoes...
    - codemac 3y ago
      Yup, definitely write code that goes on servers. I agree with you about containers. The article was about writing small cli programs, and compiling them yourself. I guess I assumed you would be able to rebuild in this discussion trivially - you wrote the program.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

There's a big gap between what you're talking about: ship a dockerfile or snap or whatever to make your big ol' service distribution-portable vs what this article was about: writing CLI programs. The moment we end up in a world where a "small CLI program" requires docker.. I give up. Time to retire from software and go raise sheep or something instead.

codemac 3y ago
Thus my last sentence: if you aren't shipping to production... you are really just copying files around, and you have a glibc. I think I just use linux enough that all the macos bugs I don't experience.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  No, it sounds like you just have a mostly "I write code that goes on servers" type job, and haven't been burned by the issue of older binaries, that won't work with new libcs. This is a real problem with Linux (not MacOS or other BSDs from what I understand) because it doesn't have a stable ABI (the ABI is basically glibc). It's a design choice, and a pain in the ass for people who want to distribute things as binaries. Which, well, it's not something I do, but, it has burned me using other people's things. Could docker/containerization solve this problem? Yes, in the same way that a shotgun would serve for eliminating mosquitoes...
  - codemac 3y ago
    Yup, definitely write code that goes on servers. I agree with you about containers. The article was about writing small cli programs, and compiling them yourself. I guess I assumed you would be able to rebuild in this discussion trivially - you wrote the program.