Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Save C, We Must Save ABI (2022)

thephd.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: To Save C, We Must Save ABI (2022)

#11

Post by dang »

jmclnx wrote: post #7
dang wrote: post #3

Discussed at the time: To save C, we must save ABI - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30660528 - March 2022 (128 comments)

Thanks. But the title seems to be misleading. the title should be "to save c++ , ....", c++ is not c nor is c the same as c++. In the old link you provided, no one mentioned this is strictly about the c++ ABI. >That's why I think C++ should be forked... Not to mention microsoft is probably the main culprit here. But jokoon came close with the above quote.

I'm sorry but I don't understand that and from a very superficial skim of the article it doesn't seem obvious that the title should say C++.

Re: To Save C, We Must Save ABI (2022)

#12

Post by detaro »

dang wrote: post #11
jmclnx wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. But the title seems to be misleading. the title should be "to save c++ , ....", c++ is not c nor is c the same as c++. In the old link you provided, no one mentioned this is strictly about the c++ ABI. >That's why I think C++ should be forked... Not to mention microsoft is probably the main culprit here. But jokoon came close with the above quote.

I'm sorry but I don't understand that and from a very superficial skim of the article it doesn't seem obvious that the title should say C++.

It shouldn't. The article picks up from a C++-centric discussion and looks at it from the perspective of C.

Re: To Save C, We Must Save ABI (2022)

#13

Post by marcosdumay »

somat wrote: post #2

The less source you have the more important having a stable ABI is. Conversely the more source you have the less important a stable binary interface is. I use a lot of openbsd. The openbsd project is actively hostile to closed source commercial programs with their laissez-faire attitude toward abi stability. However I have this enormous stable of open source software. and it all runs just fine.

That's only if you have a single compiler.

On practice, ABI expressivity (not so much stability) is something very important that people have insisted on overlooking for decades because of that single-compiler fallacy.

Re: To Save C, We Must Save ABI (2022)

#15

Post by pjmlp »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9
tialaramex wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ABI stability implies API stability Yes, but not vice versa. Rust's language and standard library for example promises API stability, but not ABI stability. Since it doesn't promise ABI stability, the actual implementation can be radically different so long as the API you were promised still works and nobody has to go around "changing every single project" because there aren't any changes, for source code nothing c…

Rust basically doesn't have dynamic linking though and is relying on underlying platforms having stable ABIs.

It does have dynamic linking, --crate-type=dylib.

Re: To Save C, We Must Save ABI (2022)

#16

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

pjmlp wrote: post #15
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust basically doesn't have dynamic linking though and is relying on underlying platforms having stable ABIs.

It does have dynamic linking, --crate-type=dylib.

Sure, but the ABI isn't stable and you're expected to recompile all your dependencies in one go. You can make a C-style ABI for your crate but that's not very common.

Re: To Save C, We Must Save ABI (2022)

#17

Post by pjmlp »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #16
pjmlp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does have dynamic linking, --crate-type=dylib.

Sure, but the ABI isn't stable and you're expected to recompile all your dependencies in one go. You can make a C-style ABI for your crate but that's not very common.

That is another matter.
Post reply on HN