I did _so much_ interoperability work at HashiCorp (not least for Windows) that I'm prepared to say this unequivocally: Windows is harder.
-
-
It can in the relatively trivial sense of compiling and running, but try getting a Rust library into ports / apt / yum / etc
-
I think that's because of legacy bureaucracy rather than real technical limitations. I'm not saying it's not needed at all, but rather ...
-
that some crufty ideology around what qualifies as a "well behaved package" is in need of some review.
-
Perhaps. I think dynamic linking still has its place... It's nice to not recompile the world for the weekly curl CVE!
-
But regardless of whether the current state of OS packaging is optimal or even correct, Rust did not target how they actually work
-
That's the social equivalent of targeting a different architecture and asking them to change it
-
It seems inappropriate to call a programming language unacceptable until it's willing to commit to a stable dynlinkable ABI.
-
That's the key. Nothing Rust could do other than commit to a stable ABI would be sufficient, and that's an unacceptable demand.
- 9 more replies
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.