3 ms·
I much prefer rust to go for many reasons, but IME go gets this part much better. Darwin / Linux cross compilation, armv7, FreeBSD, oh sorry you don't have a li
by n8henrie 2y ago
I much prefer rust to go for many reasons, but IME go gets this part much better. Darwin / Linux cross compilation, armv7, FreeBSD, oh sorry you don't have a linker for that toolchain, wait where are those OpenSSL headers... lots of cross-compilation targets I've done in minutes with go that scp and run right away that end up being days / weeks of adventures to cross compile in rust, in spite of me knowing rust much better than go at this point.
- berkes 2y agoI have had the luxury to work in projects that don't have to target many platforms, but rather "one": a server. Which then is often a simple linux variant so setting up a CI or even the local build to target that "one" is relatively simple. But wasn't Go a lot more limited in the amount of targets it can build for than rust?
- n8henrie 2y agoYes and no -- obviously I can build for no_std targets like esp32 and atmega128p in rust but not go (haven't tried tinygo), but the proportion of targets that successfully built and ran IRL has been higher for me with go. On rust, the dynamic linking of libc (by default) and failure to include a linker with the toolchain have repeatedly been stumbling blocks, go "just works."