There is no one thing to target for any of these, just "OSX" and "Linux". Calling this "Unix" is the sleight of hand.
7: OSX+Linux=Unix causes people to believe it's morally virtuous to write abstractions that cover "Unix" but not Windows. Usually a mistake.
-
-
I think people do a back of napkin calculation on how much effort it'll take to support windows, and decide they have better things to do
-
Seems like we owe 90% of computer users more.
-
Think about how many more contributions you could get if you multiply potential users by 10x.
-
Believe me, I've been down this path on several occasions. I've both done the extra work and not. And I've noticed no difference.
-
The only important difference is what you have time to do/maintain yourself. If someone contributes/maintains abstractions? fantastic.
-
linux/osx are "close enough" that you can often write code to support both without actually working directly on both systems. not windows.
-
They're not that close (see my other tweets today). You're leaning on work other people have already done to shim them.
-
And one small project supporting Windows won't improve contribution much. But if an entire ecosystem does it helps.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve written a lot of programs and libs that handle paths and/or signals. Idk about “moral”, but certainly it is cheaper and easier.
-
OSX and Linux have completely different practical signal models. The reason you perceive them as the same is because shims already exist.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.