4 ms·

> I disagree with your assessment in all cases. You simply do not know what you were talking about. No need to be rude. > Standardization efforts and backward

> I disagree with your assessment in all cases. You simply do not know what you were talking about. No need to be rude. > Standardization efforts and backward compatibility assumes a well-behaved application. If you explicitly depend on really weird hacky stuff like abusing corner cases in the object file format, you risk breakage and you will break. Sure, but if you get the standard to include your use then it's not a hacky edge case anymore. Ex. https://justine.lol/cosmo3/ https://justine.lol/cosmo3/ "POSIX even changed their rules about binary in shell scripts specifically to let us do it" > https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1250 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1250

oguz-ismail 2y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40775600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40775600 POSIX doesn't sanctify this use.
asveikau 2y ago
> No need to be rude. It was appropriate criticism. The comment above just said "like, people really value binary compatibility and stuff" -- as if it's OK to code against a very specific moment in time with internal dynamic linker constants and such. No. "It works with how ld.so is written right now" says nothing about standards conformance. Not everything that happens to work is conformant to an ABI. Not every emergent behavior is a feature of an ABI. You would have to not understand what is going on at process load time to think that. Even the highly regarded Microsoft binary compatibility does not work against the model that someone is creating an ELF and PE executable in the same file, they would rightly call that crazy town and mark any bugs as "won't fix".
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > I disagree with your assessment in all cases. Is 100% reasonable. > You simply do not know what you were talking about. Is where it crosses the line into personal attack. If you just left that part out I think the rest of your comment would be quite good. (I mean, I don't agree with it, but it's a fine argument to make.)

oguz-ismail 2y ago

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40775600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40775600 POSIX doesn't sanctify this use.

asveikau 2y ago

> No need to be rude. It was appropriate criticism. The comment above just said "like, people really value binary compatibility and stuff" -- as if it's OK to code against a very specific moment in time with internal dynamic linker constants and such. No. "It works with how ld.so is written right now" says nothing about standards conformance. Not everything that happens to work is conformant to an ABI. Not every emergent behavior is a feature of an ABI. You would have to not understand what is going on at process load time to think that. Even the highly regarded Microsoft binary compatibility does not work against the model that someone is creating an ELF and PE executable in the same file, they would rightly call that crazy town and mark any bugs as "won't fix".

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> I disagree with your assessment in all cases. Is 100% reasonable. > You simply do not know what you were talking about. Is where it crosses the line into personal attack. If you just left that part out I think the rest of your comment would be quite good. (I mean, I don't agree with it, but it's a fine argument to make.)