5 ms·

This sounds amazing, and it's great that tooling is so strong of some "new kids on the block" (Zig, Rust), even better than C. With hindsight, it is strange th

by jll29 2y ago

This sounds amazing, and it's great that tooling is so strong of some "new kids on the block" (Zig, Rust), even better than C. With hindsight, it is strange that the C community, with all the people and money behind it (and what scale!) never even managed to build a proper packaging manager (okay, there's now Conan, but that came from Python guys). But then, there even still isn't a perfect C string library around (something that would combine GLib, SDS, ICU, say, and then standardize it in C2038). [1] Hanson's C: Interfaces & Implementations (CII) - Str: https://cii.s3.amazonaws.com/book/pdf/quickref.pdf https://cii.s3.amazonaws.com/book/pdf/quickref.pdf [2] ICU - https://icu.unicode.org https://icu.unicode.org [3] SDS - https://github.com/antirez/sds https://github.com/antirez/sds [4] GLib - https://docs.gtk.org/glib/struct.String.html https://docs.gtk.org/glib/struct.String.html

flohofwoe 2y ago
The interesting thing is that the Zig build system could be implemented in a C/C++ compiler without any language changes. All that's needed is that (for instance) Clang would have a new option `clang build` which looks for a build.c/cpp file, compiles that into an executable and runs it. The actual build system functionality is 'just' an extension to the stdlib.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  It could, but then it would be tied to that specific compiler and the platforms it supports. So is the mess of ISO defined languages, where compiler toolchains are an abstract concept. Also a good point to note that OpenGroup and POSIX never bothered to standardise UNIX package management.
  - flohofwoe 2y ago
    Yeah, just Clang doing its own thing would be useless. It would have to go through the C and C++ committees, at least for the stdlib parts (and this is basically the show stopper for the idea unfortunately).
fxtentacle 2y ago
vcpkg + CMake ? It can compile almost any dependency on demand, even doing cross-compilation. And it's used by at least Microsoft and Google.
- flohofwoe 2y ago
  Such a setup includes two complex tools from two different parties plus a different C/C++ compiler toolchain per platform and platform SDKs (at least GCC, Clang (plus its Apple flavour) and MSVC). All those tools working together flawlessly at any given time is a minor miracle. In Zig all those things are in the same toolchain install, which is a a single executable plus a bunch of platform-system-headers and -libraries, all under a single version number and trivially downloadable as a zip archive which works right after unzipping without setting up paths or running an 'installer'.
bluGill 2y ago
> With hindsight, it is strange that the C community, with all the people and money behind it (and what scale!) never even managed to build a proper packaging manager (okay, there's now Conan, but that came from Python guys). Package managers are a lot more complex than people realize. Every attempt I've seen in every language has significant lacks for common real world cases. Most commonly they assume all the world is their language. Very commonly they want to take over all package management but don't have a good easy story for working with the OS package manager (I know Windows doesn't really have a package manager - but you still need to interoperate with it!). Those are big issues anyone in a complex project will face in the real world, there are also lots of little warts that will bite you. Yes package managers are nice on your trival project. However they all get in the way in your non-complex project - some more than others.
- greenavocado 2y ago
  Weird take. Does pip have to interface with the Windows or iOS package managers? No. Yet it's wildly successful.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    > Does pip have to interface with the Windows or iOS package managers? No. Yet it's wildly successful. Successful I agree. I have issues on any system I use it on because now I have the package installed by PIP and the package installed by my OS package manager - slightly different.
  - jordanozang 2y ago
    If you use pip without protection, it will gladly and malevolently mess up your system. Every Python user learns quickly about the virtual environment work around. Various distributions (e.g. through Homebrew on Os X, Arch Linux, Ubuntu Linux) ship pip without the ability to make system-wide installations (externally-managed-environment). Even on Windows, where there is no standardized package management system, doing a pip install will place a bunch of dlls in the system's PATH that could get in the way of any program on your system. The anti-solution of ignoring the problem is what got us here.
uecker 2y ago
In the unix world we use distribution package managers. This has many advantages, including security updates, some robustness against supply chain attacks, large-scale integration. All this language-level packaging systems are a mistake in my opinion.

by jll29 2y ago

flohofwoe 2y ago

The interesting thing is that the Zig build system could be implemented in a C/C++ compiler without any language changes. All that's needed is that (for instance) Clang would have a new option `clang build` which looks for a build.c/cpp file, compiles that into an executable and runs it. The actual build system functionality is 'just' an extension to the stdlib.

pjmlp 2y ago
It could, but then it would be tied to that specific compiler and the platforms it supports. So is the mess of ISO defined languages, where compiler toolchains are an abstract concept. Also a good point to note that OpenGroup and POSIX never bothered to standardise UNIX package management.
- flohofwoe 2y ago
  Yeah, just Clang doing its own thing would be useless. It would have to go through the C and C++ committees, at least for the stdlib parts (and this is basically the show stopper for the idea unfortunately).

fxtentacle 2y ago

vcpkg + CMake ? It can compile almost any dependency on demand, even doing cross-compilation. And it's used by at least Microsoft and Google.

flohofwoe 2y ago
Such a setup includes two complex tools from two different parties plus a different C/C++ compiler toolchain per platform and platform SDKs (at least GCC, Clang (plus its Apple flavour) and MSVC). All those tools working together flawlessly at any given time is a minor miracle. In Zig all those things are in the same toolchain install, which is a a single executable plus a bunch of platform-system-headers and -libraries, all under a single version number and trivially downloadable as a zip archive which works right after unzipping without setting up paths or running an 'installer'.

bluGill 2y ago

> With hindsight, it is strange that the C community, with all the people and money behind it (and what scale!) never even managed to build a proper packaging manager (okay, there's now Conan, but that came from Python guys). Package managers are a lot more complex than people realize. Every attempt I've seen in every language has significant lacks for common real world cases. Most commonly they assume all the world is their language. Very commonly they want to take over all package management but don't have a good easy story for working with the OS package manager (I know Windows doesn't really have a package manager - but you still need to interoperate with it!). Those are big issues anyone in a complex project will face in the real world, there are also lots of little warts that will bite you. Yes package managers are nice on your trival project. However they all get in the way in your non-complex project - some more than others.

greenavocado 2y ago
Weird take. Does pip have to interface with the Windows or iOS package managers? No. Yet it's wildly successful.
- bluGill 2y ago
  > Does pip have to interface with the Windows or iOS package managers? No. Yet it's wildly successful. Successful I agree. I have issues on any system I use it on because now I have the package installed by PIP and the package installed by my OS package manager - slightly different.
- jordanozang 2y ago
  If you use pip without protection, it will gladly and malevolently mess up your system. Every Python user learns quickly about the virtual environment work around. Various distributions (e.g. through Homebrew on Os X, Arch Linux, Ubuntu Linux) ship pip without the ability to make system-wide installations (externally-managed-environment). Even on Windows, where there is no standardized package management system, doing a pip install will place a bunch of dlls in the system's PATH that could get in the way of any program on your system. The anti-solution of ignoring the problem is what got us here.

uecker 2y ago

In the unix world we use distribution package managers. This has many advantages, including security updates, some robustness against supply chain attacks, large-scale integration. All this language-level packaging systems are a mistake in my opinion.