4 ms·

> We can assume there is fully working POSIX shell, Kids those days. Haven't we learned a long time ago that we shouldn't assume anything ?

by hulitu 2y ago

pornel 2y ago
You have to set some baseline. We assume the CPU can divide numbers correctly, even though not all of them did. Autoconf has set the baseline so low that everyone perpetually pays for the technical debt of ancient buggy platforms. Sometimes it's better to push a buggy platform to fix its own bugs, than to have everyone work around those bugs forever.
technion 2y ago
The issue is defining "support". I would argue it can be harmful having autoconf detect a non compliant shell and advertise it was trying to build a makefile around that fact if no one has ever tested your app on such a platform and something in the code will fail anyway.
raverbashing 2y ago
Everybody uses a POSIX shell today. Unless you're a basement dweller using OpenSolaris or something, and probably even then Then guess what, I'm not building software for you From the article: > Of course, the checks should be reasonable (and in practice, often are excessive). If your code assumes a C99 environment, you don’t need to check whether all C99 functions you use are available. Which makes sense to me (including the check based approach).
- delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
  > Everybody uses a POSIX shell today This assumption cannot be made, when ~75% of user machines and ~60% of developer machines are running Windows[1]. [1]: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#section-most-popular-technologies-operating-system https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#section-most-popular-t... The moment I see 'build.sh' in a library's or application's source tree, I am certain the build system is not portable and I look for something else. > Then guess what, I'm not building software for you I think people on HN really like not capturing significant chunks of the user population, in a bid for an unrealistic and impractical ideal.
  - raverbashing 2y ago
    How do you want a portable build system (that uses POSIX) between Linux and Windows? Autotools certainly won't give you that. Maybe inside CYGWIN or WSL and even then > The moment I see 'build.sh' I am certain the build system is not portable Obviously. They usually ship a build.sh and build.bat or something more modern. The moment I see a configure script I know the developers are still in the 90s "but the buildsystem is not portable" well, I have bad news for you regarding the rest of the fsking owl.

> We can assume there is fully working POSIX shell, Kids those days. Haven't we learned a long time ago that we shouldn't assume anything ?

by hulitu 2y ago

> We can assume there is fully working POSIX shell, Kids those days. Haven't we learned a long time ago that we shouldn't assume anything ?

pornel 2y ago

You have to set some baseline. We assume the CPU can divide numbers correctly, even though not all of them did. Autoconf has set the baseline so low that everyone perpetually pays for the technical debt of ancient buggy platforms. Sometimes it's better to push a buggy platform to fix its own bugs, than to have everyone work around those bugs forever.

technion 2y ago

The issue is defining "support". I would argue it can be harmful having autoconf detect a non compliant shell and advertise it was trying to build a makefile around that fact if no one has ever tested your app on such a platform and something in the code will fail anyway.

raverbashing 2y ago

Everybody uses a POSIX shell today. Unless you're a basement dweller using OpenSolaris or something, and probably even then Then guess what, I'm not building software for you From the article: > Of course, the checks should be reasonable (and in practice, often are excessive). If your code assumes a C99 environment, you don’t need to check whether all C99 functions you use are available. Which makes sense to me (including the check based approach).

delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
> Everybody uses a POSIX shell today This assumption cannot be made, when ~75% of user machines and ~60% of developer machines are running Windows[1]. [1]: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#section-most-popular-technologies-operating-system https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#section-most-popular-t... The moment I see 'build.sh' in a library's or application's source tree, I am certain the build system is not portable and I look for something else. > Then guess what, I'm not building software for you I think people on HN really like not capturing significant chunks of the user population, in a bid for an unrealistic and impractical ideal.
- raverbashing 2y ago
  How do you want a portable build system (that uses POSIX) between Linux and Windows? Autotools certainly won't give you that. Maybe inside CYGWIN or WSL and even then > The moment I see 'build.sh' I am certain the build system is not portable Obviously. They usually ship a build.sh and build.bat or something more modern. The moment I see a configure script I know the developers are still in the 90s "but the buildsystem is not portable" well, I have bad news for you regarding the rest of the fsking owl.