On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Kamil Cholewiński <harry6...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Very good points. However I don't think such a low-level framework > belongs as a part of an smtpd. If libc sucks, write a better libc! But > make sure it's well-tested, portable, bug-free, usable, uses good and > sane interfaces, etc etc etc. Then measure adoption in applications > versus other libnih's.
I agree Kamil. ulinux could live (and should stand) on its own.
