Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
unnick's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
ParzivalWolfram

@whitequark @jannem @dalias @wyatt8740 @unnick can confirm, i still can't figure out why it sometimes decides it's cross compiling even when the host and target are both explicitly defined as the same thing, and just... refuses to consider otherwise. it's also a pain in the ass when you have to go hunting through a ./configure script to see why something failed, because not all of them drop a log, and the env vars needed to declare stuff explicitly aren't universal outside of some parts of GCC.

i still prefer it over cmake, because cmake is fucking huge and doesn't like to find libs on non-linux hosts (or linux hosts mid-buildroot-make) and doesn't like non-linux targets very much, etc etc

28 May at 17:04 | Wall-to-wall | Open on infosec.exchange
53 comments
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?)

@parzivalwolfram @whitequark @jannem @dalias @unnick Yes, I also prefer autotools/autoconf 100% for almost everything.

28 May at 17:06 | Open on tech.lgbt
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @wyatt8740 @unnick i use cmake because i support windows as a first-class system, mainly

if your software requires cygwin or mingw to build on windows i will fucking build it for webassembly instead and ship like that

28 May at 17:07 | Open on mastodon.social
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?)

@whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick
If your windows program requires visual studio I will fucking build it for webassembly instead and ship it like that

I genuinely prefer MSYS/mingw

28 May at 17:08 | Open on tech.lgbt
ParzivalWolfram

@wyatt8740 @whitequark @jannem @dalias @unnick yeah i've never had a good experience with VS, even VSC, or even VC/VC++ lol, though i also have constant issues with C#/.NET programs and anything adjacent to it but people online tend to tell me it's somehow user error if a .NET program spits out nonsensical, never-before-seen error messages then just die. i only write in python on windows just to avoid all of those headaches.

28 May at 17:12 | Open on infosec.exchange
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@parzivalwolfram @wyatt8740 @jannem @dalias @unnick I shipped software that built on both MinGW and VS; I don't mind the compilers (either), I mind the garbage around them built by people who think fork() is peak API design

28 May at 17:14 | Open on mastodon.social
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick fork is quite annoying, i agree
But bash isn't the POSIX C API. You don't have to write fork()'s to use a shell script

28 May at 17:15 | Open on tech.lgbt
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740 @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick shell scripts are for automating admin tasks. write your build system in a real language, such as CMakeLists.txt (still more real than bash)

28 May at 17:17 | Open on mastodon.social
Amber replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark@mastodon.social @wyatt8740@tech.lgbt @parzivalwolfram@infosec.exchange @jannem@fosstodon.org @dalias@hachyderm.io @unnick@wetdry.world real language and seeing CMakeLists.txt threw me for a spin. I fucking hate writing cmake but I hate using anything that's not cmake 😭

28 May at 17:18 | Open on transfem.social
ParzivalWolfram replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @jannem @dalias @unnick question: what if csh from 1989 is the only scripting language available to you, and there's no compilers available on a target system except K&R as? i'm working on a project where this is the entire issue, and it's... not fun. this is the precise case where that "consider using bash to build GCC because some cases in other shells make the ./configure script take literal days" warning actually happens lol

28 May at 17:20 | Open on infosec.exchange
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ParzivalWolfram

@parzivalwolfram @whitequark @jannem @dalias @unnick i was about to mention csh, actually. Lol.

There are so many things worse than a bourne shell
Bourne shell is the only way i can comfortably survive in a windows environment

28 May at 17:21 | Open on tech.lgbt
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to ParzivalWolfram

@parzivalwolfram @wyatt8740 @jannem @dalias @unnick I bring a c89 single file wasm interpreter, then see step 1

28 May at 17:21 | Open on mastodon.social
always tired (moved to chaos) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick I'm in a project using cmake and I don't like it. (I prototyped a replacement of our build stuff in omake in finite time...) But definitely less bad than autohell.

28 May at 21:24 | Open on wandering.shop
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to always tired (moved to chaos)

@project1enigma @whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick I'm a fan of writing a makefile and telling people to figure it out.

Sure, it pissed me off when i started, but once I figured out how makefiles work I appreciated them a lot more

28 May at 21:48 | Open on tech.lgbt
always tired (moved to chaos) replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740 @whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick make has its limitations especially in really big multi directory source trees like ours. omake is enough make like, but with multi directory stuff just working really correctly. And fast. That's why I used that for my prototype alternative build.

28 May at 21:56 | Open on wandering.shop
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740 @project1enigma @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick I probably write makefiles better than you do and this is exactly why I avoid it inflicting it on others: as a matter of basic compassion

29 May at 7:34 | Open on mastodon.social
ParzivalWolfram replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @project1enigma @jannem @dalias @unnick i don't mind projects with makefiles that are like 30 lines at most, where it's just a shell script but it's kept around for build systems and such. when it's a 30KB file full of high-level shell wizardry... i just have to hope i don't have to dig through it and that it just works.

29 May at 9:47 | Open on infosec.exchange
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧
Em replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740@tech.lgbt

Sis
You both implied the same thing and diverged around "but what about other people"

29 May at 12:39 | Open on woem.men
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @project1enigma @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick where was I a prick who said that I was better at programming than you?

29 May at 13:40 | Open on tech.lgbt
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @project1enigma @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick The first link is clearly not me saying "i'm a better programmer." I am saying that I appreciate the simplicity of a makefile compared to dealing with cmake

As for the second, i said that because YOU implied I was incompetent for liking bourne shells. Jerk. Blocking now.

29 May at 13:46 | Open on tech.lgbt
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt
ParzivalWolfram replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @project1enigma @jannem @dalias @unnick cmake is still an eighties-quality tool, it can't handle being used in buildroot 90% of the time without manual intervention and the nightlies need cmake to build cmake, so that's gonna be fun to look forward to later considering that got pkg-config (or whatever it was, i forget the name) replaced with a rewritten tool by most distros pretty fast.

29 May at 15:33 | Open on infosec.exchange
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@wyatt8740 @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick I don't care about Visual Studio but if your software requires bash I will rm the entire build system and redo it using something made by competent people

28 May at 17:12 | Open on mastodon.social
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?)

@whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick Your opinions are frankly wrong.
Windows is not for competent people which is why they treat it as second class
(sorry i'm done now)

28 May at 17:13 | Open on tech.lgbt
ParzivalWolfram

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @jannem @dalias @unnick Bash extensions can be very helpful, but it is big and sometimes critically buggy, I do agree on those common points.

28 May at 17:17 | Open on infosec.exchange
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ParzivalWolfram
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740 @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick the only thing worse than a bourne shell is cmd.exe

28 May at 17:18 | Open on mastodon.social
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick it's been around since windows xp. I'm astonished if you never have

28 May at 17:20 | Open on tech.lgbt
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick gotta say i kind of wondered when you said 'only thing worse is cmd.exe'
Because that means you never used DOS

28 May at 17:22 | Open on tech.lgbt
✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧ replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740 @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick I have, actually! I never tried to ship DOS batch files at scale though, because that scale did not exist yet

28 May at 17:22 | Open on mastodon.social
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick command.com bat files are much worse than windows bat files

28 May at 17:23 | Open on tech.lgbt
Pixel Doge replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740 @whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @dalias @unnick ...aaaand that's why some of us used 4DOS, before moving over to Unix-like systems soon after.

28 May at 20:04 | Open on oldbytes.space
ParzivalWolfram replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @jannem @dalias @unnick

if you need a variable that has iterable characters, you have to do something to the tune of:

choice /t:=,1 /c=%1= R:\bat\str2.bat > %TEMP%\test.bat
%TEMP%\test.bat

where str2.bat is the script to actually process the iterable (in my case, it's up to three splits in a string, and it's 1.2KB.)

this relies on error logic in choice to accomplish this, and needs tweaking for the version of DOS it's running on (this precise line only works on MS-DOS 6+ or equal IBM-DOS, and I don't think DR-DOS needs this at all, since it has some string comprehension extensions iirc)

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @jannem @dalias @unnick

if you need a variable that has iterable characters, you have to do something to the tune of:

choice /t:=,1 /c=%1= R:\bat\str2.bat > %TEMP%\test.bat
%TEMP%\test.bat

where str2.bat is the script to actually process the iterable (in my case, it's up to three splits in a string, and it's 1.2KB.)

28 May at 17:26 | Open on infosec.exchange
Amber replied to Wyatt

@wyatt8740@tech.lgbt @whitequark@mastodon.social @parzivalwolfram@infosec.exchange @jannem@fosstodon.org @dalias@hachyderm.io @unnick@wetdry.world Honestly both of them are horrendous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE8IAxM_BhE (and the follow up to how to secure against such attacks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97ejtv56xw) but what really got me was the finale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mej5L9PE1fs I hate cmd.exe and powershell.exe they are the antichrist and i am not joking.

28 May at 17:21 | Open on transfem.social
ParzivalWolfram replied to ✧✦✶✷Catherine✷✶✦✧

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @jannem @dalias @unnick i've done some DOS slinging, it's even worse without the extensions from the NT era. splitting a string is a 3-batch-file job totalling... 2104 bytes, for a maximum of 3 splits on one character, more if you need more than that, and there's no way to do it programmatically up to n splits unless you hardcode support up to that number.

28 May at 17:23 | Open on infosec.exchange
Rich Felker

@whitequark @wyatt8740 @parzivalwolfram @jannem @unnick Not bash just a POSIX shell, which only needs fork if you're bad at implementing it and code like it's 1970... 😁

28 May at 19:33 | Open on hachyderm.io
Wyatt (🏳️‍⚧️♀?) replied to Rich

@dalias @whitequark @parzivalwolfram @jannem @unnick Hi, I program like it's 1970.

Not really, more like 1989

28 May at 19:35 | Open on tech.lgbt
ParzivalWolfram

@whitequark @jannem @dalias @wyatt8740 @unnick cmake is good in theory, but in practice it needs an infinite number of beatings over the head to make it work in any slightly non-standard configuration, and it's so big that it's almost worthless if you need backwards-compatibility (or if you're stupid like me and need it to run on Solaris 7 or a 3DS or some shit like that...) Most people won't use it in these configurations, because... why would they? but it's an issue for me, and i reserve the right to not like a tool that can't be bent to fit a weird situation even a little bit lol

@whitequark @jannem @dalias @wyatt8740 @unnick cmake is good in theory, but in practice it needs an infinite number of beatings over the head to make it work in any slightly non-standard configuration, and it's so big that it's almost worthless if you need backwards-compatibility (or if you're stupid like me and need it to run on Solaris 7 or a 3DS or some shit like that...) Most people won't use it in these configurations, because... why would they? but it's an issue for me, and i reserve the right...

28 May at 17:15 | Open on infosec.exchange
Rich Felker

@parzivalwolfram @whitequark @jannem @wyatt8740 @unnick cmake is just an awful user facing interface. No consistency in how you override what tools to use, where to find libraries, what flags to build with, where to install, how to do a staged install, etc. NTM the horrible DSL and gigantic implementation that takes like an hour ti build.

28 May at 19:35 | Open on hachyderm.io
always tired (moved to chaos)

@parzivalwolfram @whitequark @jannem @dalias @wyatt8740 @unnick I'm in a similar situation (custom needs) but we still went into cmake (against my advice). It's annoying. Bad design of hardcoding too much into an engine instead of good language design (good base language with low enough primitives, the comfort stuff as library with good abilities to override/customize defaults if needed)

28 May at 21:27 | Open on wandering.shop
Go Up