4 ms·

It’s a very cool toy and fun personal project, but it’s not much more even though the author really wants it to be. Your code has to be vaguely portable anyway

It’s a very cool toy and fun personal project, but it’s not much more even though the author really wants it to be. Your code has to be vaguely portable anyway for this to work. So why would you pay the tradeoffs for a binary that runs in multiple operating systems, which is not that useful.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
I can only hope my own projects reach 10% the coolness of this "toy" one day.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  It's not a personal attack
  - rhizome 3y ago
    It doesn't have to be personal to be condescending and/or dismissive.
legends2k 3y ago
I noticed a similar comment from you in the same thread. If you don't write portable software, it doesn't mean the world isn't writing portable software in C, C++, Rust, etc. To list a very few ones: Blender, GIMP, Emacs, Vim, Pidgin, Evince, Firefox, gEdit, Inkscape, Krita, FFmpeg, Python, Perl, ... I could go on and on.
- appleskeptic 3y ago
  You can write portable software… and then compile it for each platform to get the best performance and functionality.
  - joe-user 3y ago
    > You can write portable software… and then compile it for each platform to get the best performance and functionality. Perhaps not what you intended, but I believe this is that exactly what Cosmopolitan is doing: - They are writing portable software in that it can run on various architectures and operating systems - They compile it for each platform, even if the output is a single binary - For the best performance and functionality, they mention several examples of how Cosmopolitan outperforms the native alternatives I'm sure there are plenty of rebuttals ("Emacs on Windows is a port", "Cygwin isn't portable", "they could make the native version of $WHATEVER more performant", "Cosmopolitan isn't always faster", etc.), all of which are well and good, but would be missing the bigger picture, which is that there are reasons for both approaches (among others!) to exist, an idea that far transcends software.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  That "portable" software is full of conditional compilation flags and wrappers to OS specific APIs.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

I can only hope my own projects reach 10% the coolness of this "toy" one day.

refulgentis 3y ago
It's not a personal attack
- rhizome 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be personal to be condescending and/or dismissive.

legends2k 3y ago

I noticed a similar comment from you in the same thread. If you don't write portable software, it doesn't mean the world isn't writing portable software in C, C++, Rust, etc. To list a very few ones: Blender, GIMP, Emacs, Vim, Pidgin, Evince, Firefox, gEdit, Inkscape, Krita, FFmpeg, Python, Perl, ... I could go on and on.

appleskeptic 3y ago
You can write portable software… and then compile it for each platform to get the best performance and functionality.
- joe-user 3y ago
  > You can write portable software… and then compile it for each platform to get the best performance and functionality. Perhaps not what you intended, but I believe this is that exactly what Cosmopolitan is doing: - They are writing portable software in that it can run on various architectures and operating systems - They compile it for each platform, even if the output is a single binary - For the best performance and functionality, they mention several examples of how Cosmopolitan outperforms the native alternatives I'm sure there are plenty of rebuttals ("Emacs on Windows is a port", "Cygwin isn't portable", "they could make the native version of $WHATEVER more performant", "Cosmopolitan isn't always faster", etc.), all of which are well and good, but would be missing the bigger picture, which is that there are reasons for both approaches (among others!) to exist, an idea that far transcends software.
pjmlp 3y ago
That "portable" software is full of conditional compilation flags and wrappers to OS specific APIs.