3 ms·
I think the main concern about libc is that there are many aspects of it that aren't "minimal", so developers who want an interface for syscalls only are pressu
by vacuity 3y ago
I think the main concern about libc is that there are many aspects of it that aren't "minimal", so developers who want an interface for syscalls only are pressured into using libc in its entirety. I do not think libc is currently well designed either.
- nanolith 3y agoFor GNU libc, I would agree. But, not all libc implementations are equal. OpenBSD has spent a lot of time sanitizing their libc implementation, and they have even split their static C runtime library to further reduce its footprint. Developers are only really penalized for what they use. read, write, socket, bind, close, open, mmap, etc., really aren't that complex. Already, that's a significant portion of the libc footprint that any other language would use. I personally see little reason why libc couldn't be further minimized into a libunix that just contained the syscall interface. It doesn't make much of a difference really, but perhaps it would shift the largely misplaced unease that many developers have regarding anything involving C.
- vacuity 3y agoI will look into OpenBSD's implementation. Sounds interesting!