4 ms·
I was like you until last year. I did all my development from Emacs on WSL1, writing mostly Windows-specific code (DCOM). I maintained a set of brittle hacks to
by TeMPOraL 2y ago
I was like you until last year. I did all my development from Emacs on WSL1, writing mostly Windows-specific code (DCOM). I maintained a set of brittle hacks to allow me to drive Windows side CMake and MSBuild straight from Emacs, and then run LSP on compile commands from Clang tricked into thinking it's cross-compiling. It held up surprisingly well.
Eventually, I installed a WSL2 distro so I could run Docker, then I had to reimage the machine because corporate reasons, and then, with my work involving less Windows-specific code, I decided to not recreate my pile of hacks, but start with a fresh WSL2 setup. It works well enough, so that's what I use now.
FWIW, I always liked WSL1 more. WSL2 is basically just more streamlined VirtualBox setup; WSL1 is magic.
- nyarlathotep_ 2y agoGenuinely impressed at this bespoke approach.
- nine_k 2y agoWSL1 reminds me of coLinux of old times. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Linux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Linux
- chungy 2y agoThat's more comparable to WSL2 than WSL1. WSL1 is a subsystem on the NT kernel, allowing Linux binaries to run natively on Windows itself (not a virtual machine). It's the spiritual successor to Interix, that showed up in NT 4.0 and was removed in Windows 8. The flip side is Wine, allowing Windows binaries to run natively on Linux.
- HeavyStorm 2y agoActually, it's a streamlined Hyper-V setup, rather literally.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 2y agoYou run emacs on the Linux side now though, right? So you're probably better off that way.