On Friday, June 10, 2016, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:06:54 -0700 > Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Louis, > > > Good job for getting this working. I'm a believer that suckless > > indirectly speaks to API design in addition to software design. There > > are many parts of libc that suck, IMO. Years ago, when I found Felix > > von Leitner's talk about software design [0], and dietlibc [1], and > > libdjb [2], and libowfat [3], I became curious about exploring other > > runtimes for C [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Keep applying your ulinux runtime. > > are you joking? This reeks of NiH. In many regards, Posix has issues > and without doubt, they can hinder you. But does it really justify > just handrolling your own, unportable, probably buggy libc?
As to justification, I'd say, that depends. Libc (and C in general) has some well known, well documented bugs that exists simply to keep old code compiling (many methods that start with str*, malloc/free corner but frequent cases, etc). I'd say that's sucks. And that is why we have seen the proliferation of languages in the last 30 years (since ansi c acceptance). A condition of NIH and a far worse sin than trying to fix the situation by utilizing a lower level api. Take Plan 9 or Go-lang. Is that NIH? Or is that someone experimenting and/or seizing an opportunity to suckless?
