2 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoHow 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.