7 ms·

In Linuxland you at least have pkg-config to help with package management. It's not perfect but neither is any other package management solution. If I'm writi

In Linuxland you at least have pkg-config to help with package management. It's not perfect but neither is any other package management solution. If I'm writing a small utility or something the Makefile typically looks something like this: CC=clang PACKAGES=libcurl libturbojpeg CFLAGS=-Wall -pedantic --std=gnu17 -g $(shell pkg-config --cflags $(PACKAGES)) LDLIBS=$(shell pkg-config --libs $(PACKAGES)) ALL: imagerunner imagerunner: imagerunner.o image_decoder.o downloader.o

duped 1y ago
Consider that to do this you must: - Use a build system like make, you can't just `c++ build` - Understand that C++ compilers by default have no idea where most things are, you have to tell them exactly where to search - Use an external tool that's not your build system or compiler to actually inform the compiler what those search paths are - Oh also understand the compiler doesn't actually output what you want, you also need a linker - That linker also doesn't know where to find things, so you need the external tool to use it - Oh and you still have to use a package manager to install those dependencies to work with pkg-config, and it will install them globally. If you want to use it in different projects you better hope you're ok with them all sharing the same version. Now you can see why things like IDEs became default tools for teaching students how to write C and C++, because there's no "open a text editor and then `c++ build file.cpp` to get output" for anything except hello world examples.
- palata 1y ago
  I can use pkg-config just fine. Not sure how relevant the "in order to use a tool, you need to learn how to use the tool". Or from the other side: not sure what I should think about the quality of the work produced by people who don't want to learn relatively basic skills... it does not take two PhDs to understand how to use pkg-config.
  - duped 1y ago
    I'm just pointing out that one reason devex sucks in C++ is because the fact you need a wide array of tools, that are non portable, and require learning and teaching magic incantations at the command line or in build scripts to work, doesn't foster what one could call a "good" experience. Frankly the idea that your compiler driver should not be a basic build system, package manager, and linker is an idea best left in the 80s where it belongs.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      that idea that packages and builds belongs to simple problem, large projects need things like more than one laguage and so end up fighting the language
      - duped 1y ago
        Every modern language seems to have an answer to this problem that C and C++ refuse to touch because it's out of scope for their respective committees and standards orgs
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        C++ has a plethora of available build and package management systems. They just aren't bundled with the compiler. IMO that is a good thing, because it keeps the compiler writers honest.
        jimbob45 1y ago
        You say that as if Cargo, MSBuild, and pip aren’t massively loved by their communities.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        "Massively loved" and "good decision" are orthogonal axes. See the current npm drama. People love wantonly importing dependencies the way they love drinking. Both feel great but neither is good for you.
- benreesman 1y ago
  clang++ $(pkg-config --cflags --libs libtorch) qwen-3-nvfp4.cpp -o ./qwen-3-infer Your move.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- worik 1y ago
  None of that is a problem There are a lot of problems, but having to carefully construct the build environment is a minor one time hassle. Then repeated foot guns going off, no toes left, company bankrupt and banking system crashed, again
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    > There are a lot of problems, but having to carefully construct the build environment is a minor one time hassle. I've observed the existence in larger projects of "build engineers" whose sole job is to keep the project building on a regular cadence. These jobs predominantly seem to exist in C++ land.
    - wojciii 1y ago
      How is that even possible? Wasn't CI invented to solve just this problem?
      - vlovich123 1y ago
        You have a team of 20 engineers on a project you want to maintain velocity on. With that many coooks, you have patches on top of patches of your build system where everyone does the bare minimum to meet the near term task only and it devolves into a mess no one wants to touch over enough time. Your choice: do you have the most senior engineers spend time sporadically maintaining the build system, perhaps declaring fires to try to pay off tech debt, or hire someone full time, perhaps cheaper and with better expertise, dedicated to the task instead? CI is an orthogonal problem but that too requires maintenance - do you maintain it ad-hoc or make it the official responsibility for someone to keep maintained and flexible for the team’s needs? I think you think I’m saying the task is keeping the build green whereas I’m saying someone has to keep the system that’s keeping the build green going and functional.
        AdieuToLogic 1y ago
        > You have a team of 20 engineers on a project you want to maintain velocity on. With that many coooks, you have patches on top of patches of your build system ... The scenario you are describing does not make sense for the commonly accepted industry definition of "build system." It would make sense if, instead, the description was "application", "product", or "system." Many software engineers use and interpret the phrase "build system" to be something akin to make[0] or similar solution used to produce executable artifacts from source code assets. 0 - https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=make&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+14.3-RELEASE+and+Ports&arch=default&format=html https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=make&apropos=0&sek...
- jlarocco 1y ago
  It's really not that big of a deal once you know how it works, and there are tools like CMake and IDEs that will take care of it. On Windows and OSX it's even easier - if you're okay writing only for those platforms. It's more difficult to learn, and it seems convoluted for people coming from Python and Javascript, but there are a lot of advantages to not having package management and build tooling tightly integrated with the language or compiler, too.
  - imtringued 1y ago
    I used to write a lot of C++ in 2017. Now in 2025 I have no memory of how to do that anymore. It's bespoke Makefile nonsense with zero hope of standardization. It's definitively something that doesn't grow with experience. Meanwhile my gradle setups have been almost unchanged since that time if it wasn't for the stupid backwards incompatible gradle releases.
    - gpderetta 1y ago
      > It's bespoke Makefile nonsense with zero hope of standardization technically Makefile is standardized (by POSIX), contrary to most alternatives. /extremely pedantic
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      I would rather deal with Makefiles than Gradle.
      - saghm 1y ago
        I think we can afford to strive for more than just "not quite the absolute worst" (for however we decide to measure quality).
    - einpoklum 1y ago
      > I used to write a lot of C++ in 2017... It's bespoke Makefile nonsense 1. Makefiles are for build systems; they are not C++. 2. Even for building C++ - in 2017, there was no need to write bespoke Makefiles, or any Makefiles. You could, and should, have written CMake; and your CMake files would be usable and relevant today. > Meanwhile my gradle setups have been almost unchanged since that time ... but, typically, with far narrower applicability.
- account42 1y ago
  > Use a build system like make, you can't just `c++ build` This is a strength not a weakness because it allows you to choose your build system independently of the language. It also means that you get build systems that can support compiling complex projects using multiple programming languages. > Understand that C++ compilers by default have no idea where most things are, you have to tell them exactly where to search This is a strength not a weakness because it allows you to organize your dependencies and their locations on your computer however you want and are not bound by whatever your language designer wants. > Use an external tool that's not your build system or compiler to actually inform the compiler what those search paths are This is a strength not a weakness because you are not bound to a particular way of how this should work. > Oh also understand the compiler doesn't actually output what you want, you also need a linker This is a strength not a weakness because now you can link together parts written in different programming languages which allows you to reuse good code instead of reinventing the universe. > That linker also doesn't know where to find things, so you need the external tool to use it This is a strength not a weakness for the reasons already mentioned above. > Oh and you still have to use a package manager to install those dependencies to work with pkg-config, and it will install them globally. If you want to use it in different projects you better hope you're ok with them all sharing the same version. This is a strength not a weakness because you can have fully offline builds including ways to distribute dependencies to air-gapped systems and are not reliant on one specific online service to do your job. Also all of this is a non-issue if you use a half-modern build system. Conflating the language, compiler, build system and package manager is one of the main reason why I stay away from "modern" programming languages. You are basically arguing against the Unix philosophy of having different tools that work together with each tool focusing on one specific task. This allows different tools to evolve independently and for alternatives to exist rather than a single tool that has to fit everyone.
  - juliangmp 1y ago
    > This is a strength not a weakness Massive cope, there's no excuse for the lack of decent infrastructure. I mean, the C++ committee for years said explicitly that they don't care about infrastructure and build systems, so it's not really surprising.
- jandrese 1y ago
  You also don't do "rustc build". Cargo is a build system too. The whole point of pkg-config is to tell the compiler where those packages are. I mean yeah, that's the point of having a tool like that. It's fine that the compiler doesn't know that, because its job is turning source into executables, not being the OS glue. I'm not sure "having a linker" is a weakness? What are talking about? It is true that you need to use the package manager to install the dependencies. This is more effort than having a package manager download them for you automatically, but on the other hand you don't end up in a situation where you need virtual environments for every application because they've all downloaded slightly different versions of the same packages. It's a bit of a philosophical argument as to what is the better solution. The argument that it is too hard for students seems a bit overblown. The instructions for getting this up and running are: 1. apt install build-essential 2. extract the example files (Makefile and c file), cd into the directory 3. type "make" 4. run your program with ./programname I'd argue that is fewer steps than setting up almost any IDE. The Makefile is 6 lines and is easy to adapt to any similar size project. The only major weakness is headers, in which case you can do something like: HEADERS=headerA.h headerB.h headerC.h file1.o: $(HEADERS) file2.o: $(HEADERS) file3.o: $(HEADERS) If you change any header it will trigger a full system rebuild, but on C projects this is fine for a long time. It's just annoying that you have to create a new entry for every c file you add to the project instead of being able to tell make to add that to every object automatically. I suspect there is a very arcane way to do this, but I try to keep it as simple as possible.
  - steveklabnik 1y ago
    I'm not your parent, but the overall point of this kind of thing is that all of these individual steps are more annoying and error-prone than one command that just takes care of it. `cargo build` is all you need to build the vast majority of Rust projects. No need to edit the Makefile for those headers, or remember which commands you need to install the various dependencies, and name them individually, figuring out which name maps to your distro's naming scheme, etc. It's not just "one command vs five" it's "one command for every project vs five commands that differ slightly per project and per platform". `make` can come close to this, and it's why people love `./configure; make`, and there's no inherent reason why this couldn't paper over some more differences to make it near universal, but that still only gets you Unix platforms. > but on the other hand you don't end up in a situation where you need virtual environments for every application because they've all downloaded slightly different versions of the same packages. The real downside here is that if you need two different programs with two different versions of packages, you're stuck. This is often mitigated by things like foo vs foo2, but I have been in a situation where two projects both rely on different versions of foo2, and cannot be unified. The per-project dependency strategy handles this with ease, the global strategy cannot.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > Understand that C++ compilers by default have no idea where most things are C, C++ compilers by default expect libraries to be installed in the correct place, which would mean that you don't need to specify flags at all. Also nothing stops you from writing: #include </home/john/../../opt/my/stupid/path/last-project/final/finalv2/work/symlink-somewhere-else/foo/quick-test/school/c-tutorial/v9/1-introduction/header-file.h>

duped 1y ago

Consider that to do this you must: - Use a build system like make, you can't just `c++ build` - Understand that C++ compilers by default have no idea where most things are, you have to tell them exactly where to search - Use an external tool that's not your build system or compiler to actually inform the compiler what those search paths are - Oh also understand the compiler doesn't actually output what you want, you also need a linker - That linker also doesn't know where to find things, so you need the external tool to use it - Oh and you still have to use a package manager to install those dependencies to work with pkg-config, and it will install them globally. If you want to use it in different projects you better hope you're ok with them all sharing the same version. Now you can see why things like IDEs became default tools for teaching students how to write C and C++, because there's no "open a text editor and then `c++ build file.cpp` to get output" for anything except hello world examples.

palata 1y ago
I can use pkg-config just fine. Not sure how relevant the "in order to use a tool, you need to learn how to use the tool". Or from the other side: not sure what I should think about the quality of the work produced by people who don't want to learn relatively basic skills... it does not take two PhDs to understand how to use pkg-config.
- duped 1y ago
  I'm just pointing out that one reason devex sucks in C++ is because the fact you need a wide array of tools, that are non portable, and require learning and teaching magic incantations at the command line or in build scripts to work, doesn't foster what one could call a "good" experience. Frankly the idea that your compiler driver should not be a basic build system, package manager, and linker is an idea best left in the 80s where it belongs.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    that idea that packages and builds belongs to simple problem, large projects need things like more than one laguage and so end up fighting the language
    - duped 1y ago
      Every modern language seems to have an answer to this problem that C and C++ refuse to touch because it's out of scope for their respective committees and standards orgs
      - pclmulqdq 1y ago
        C++ has a plethora of available build and package management systems. They just aren't bundled with the compiler. IMO that is a good thing, because it keeps the compiler writers honest.
        jimbob45 1y ago
        You say that as if Cargo, MSBuild, and pip aren’t massively loved by their communities.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        "Massively loved" and "good decision" are orthogonal axes. See the current npm drama. People love wantonly importing dependencies the way they love drinking. Both feel great but neither is good for you.
benreesman 1y ago
clang++ $(pkg-config --cflags --libs libtorch) qwen-3-nvfp4.cpp -o ./qwen-3-infer Your move.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
worik 1y ago
None of that is a problem There are a lot of problems, but having to carefully construct the build environment is a minor one time hassle. Then repeated foot guns going off, no toes left, company bankrupt and banking system crashed, again
- vlovich123 1y ago
  > There are a lot of problems, but having to carefully construct the build environment is a minor one time hassle. I've observed the existence in larger projects of "build engineers" whose sole job is to keep the project building on a regular cadence. These jobs predominantly seem to exist in C++ land.
  - wojciii 1y ago
    How is that even possible? Wasn't CI invented to solve just this problem?
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      You have a team of 20 engineers on a project you want to maintain velocity on. With that many coooks, you have patches on top of patches of your build system where everyone does the bare minimum to meet the near term task only and it devolves into a mess no one wants to touch over enough time. Your choice: do you have the most senior engineers spend time sporadically maintaining the build system, perhaps declaring fires to try to pay off tech debt, or hire someone full time, perhaps cheaper and with better expertise, dedicated to the task instead? CI is an orthogonal problem but that too requires maintenance - do you maintain it ad-hoc or make it the official responsibility for someone to keep maintained and flexible for the team’s needs? I think you think I’m saying the task is keeping the build green whereas I’m saying someone has to keep the system that’s keeping the build green going and functional.
      - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
        > You have a team of 20 engineers on a project you want to maintain velocity on. With that many coooks, you have patches on top of patches of your build system ... The scenario you are describing does not make sense for the commonly accepted industry definition of "build system." It would make sense if, instead, the description was "application", "product", or "system." Many software engineers use and interpret the phrase "build system" to be something akin to make[0] or similar solution used to produce executable artifacts from source code assets. 0 - https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=make&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+14.3-RELEASE+and+Ports&arch=default&format=html https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=make&apropos=0&sek...
jlarocco 1y ago
It's really not that big of a deal once you know how it works, and there are tools like CMake and IDEs that will take care of it. On Windows and OSX it's even easier - if you're okay writing only for those platforms. It's more difficult to learn, and it seems convoluted for people coming from Python and Javascript, but there are a lot of advantages to not having package management and build tooling tightly integrated with the language or compiler, too.
- imtringued 1y ago
  I used to write a lot of C++ in 2017. Now in 2025 I have no memory of how to do that anymore. It's bespoke Makefile nonsense with zero hope of standardization. It's definitively something that doesn't grow with experience. Meanwhile my gradle setups have been almost unchanged since that time if it wasn't for the stupid backwards incompatible gradle releases.
  - gpderetta 1y ago
    > It's bespoke Makefile nonsense with zero hope of standardization technically Makefile is standardized (by POSIX), contrary to most alternatives. /extremely pedantic
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    I would rather deal with Makefiles than Gradle.
    - saghm 1y ago
      I think we can afford to strive for more than just "not quite the absolute worst" (for however we decide to measure quality).
  - einpoklum 1y ago
    > I used to write a lot of C++ in 2017... It's bespoke Makefile nonsense 1. Makefiles are for build systems; they are not C++. 2. Even for building C++ - in 2017, there was no need to write bespoke Makefiles, or any Makefiles. You could, and should, have written CMake; and your CMake files would be usable and relevant today. > Meanwhile my gradle setups have been almost unchanged since that time ... but, typically, with far narrower applicability.
account42 1y ago
> Use a build system like make, you can't just `c++ build` This is a strength not a weakness because it allows you to choose your build system independently of the language. It also means that you get build systems that can support compiling complex projects using multiple programming languages. > Understand that C++ compilers by default have no idea where most things are, you have to tell them exactly where to search This is a strength not a weakness because it allows you to organize your dependencies and their locations on your computer however you want and are not bound by whatever your language designer wants. > Use an external tool that's not your build system or compiler to actually inform the compiler what those search paths are This is a strength not a weakness because you are not bound to a particular way of how this should work. > Oh also understand the compiler doesn't actually output what you want, you also need a linker This is a strength not a weakness because now you can link together parts written in different programming languages which allows you to reuse good code instead of reinventing the universe. > That linker also doesn't know where to find things, so you need the external tool to use it This is a strength not a weakness for the reasons already mentioned above. > Oh and you still have to use a package manager to install those dependencies to work with pkg-config, and it will install them globally. If you want to use it in different projects you better hope you're ok with them all sharing the same version. This is a strength not a weakness because you can have fully offline builds including ways to distribute dependencies to air-gapped systems and are not reliant on one specific online service to do your job. Also all of this is a non-issue if you use a half-modern build system. Conflating the language, compiler, build system and package manager is one of the main reason why I stay away from "modern" programming languages. You are basically arguing against the Unix philosophy of having different tools that work together with each tool focusing on one specific task. This allows different tools to evolve independently and for alternatives to exist rather than a single tool that has to fit everyone.
- juliangmp 1y ago
  > This is a strength not a weakness Massive cope, there's no excuse for the lack of decent infrastructure. I mean, the C++ committee for years said explicitly that they don't care about infrastructure and build systems, so it's not really surprising.
jandrese 1y ago
You also don't do "rustc build". Cargo is a build system too. The whole point of pkg-config is to tell the compiler where those packages are. I mean yeah, that's the point of having a tool like that. It's fine that the compiler doesn't know that, because its job is turning source into executables, not being the OS glue. I'm not sure "having a linker" is a weakness? What are talking about? It is true that you need to use the package manager to install the dependencies. This is more effort than having a package manager download them for you automatically, but on the other hand you don't end up in a situation where you need virtual environments for every application because they've all downloaded slightly different versions of the same packages. It's a bit of a philosophical argument as to what is the better solution. The argument that it is too hard for students seems a bit overblown. The instructions for getting this up and running are: 1. apt install build-essential 2. extract the example files (Makefile and c file), cd into the directory 3. type "make" 4. run your program with ./programname I'd argue that is fewer steps than setting up almost any IDE. The Makefile is 6 lines and is easy to adapt to any similar size project. The only major weakness is headers, in which case you can do something like: HEADERS=headerA.h headerB.h headerC.h file1.o: $(HEADERS) file2.o: $(HEADERS) file3.o: $(HEADERS) If you change any header it will trigger a full system rebuild, but on C projects this is fine for a long time. It's just annoying that you have to create a new entry for every c file you add to the project instead of being able to tell make to add that to every object automatically. I suspect there is a very arcane way to do this, but I try to keep it as simple as possible.
- steveklabnik 1y ago
  I'm not your parent, but the overall point of this kind of thing is that all of these individual steps are more annoying and error-prone than one command that just takes care of it. `cargo build` is all you need to build the vast majority of Rust projects. No need to edit the Makefile for those headers, or remember which commands you need to install the various dependencies, and name them individually, figuring out which name maps to your distro's naming scheme, etc. It's not just "one command vs five" it's "one command for every project vs five commands that differ slightly per project and per platform". `make` can come close to this, and it's why people love `./configure; make`, and there's no inherent reason why this couldn't paper over some more differences to make it near universal, but that still only gets you Unix platforms. > but on the other hand you don't end up in a situation where you need virtual environments for every application because they've all downloaded slightly different versions of the same packages. The real downside here is that if you need two different programs with two different versions of packages, you're stuck. This is often mitigated by things like foo vs foo2, but I have been in a situation where two projects both rely on different versions of foo2, and cannot be unified. The per-project dependency strategy handles this with ease, the global strategy cannot.
1718627440 1y ago
> Understand that C++ compilers by default have no idea where most things are C, C++ compilers by default expect libraries to be installed in the correct place, which would mean that you don't need to specify flags at all. Also nothing stops you from writing: #include </home/john/../../opt/my/stupid/path/last-project/final/finalv2/work/symlink-somewhere-else/foo/quick-test/school/c-tutorial/v9/1-introduction/header-file.h>