Comment by dboon
1 day ago
I have no philosophical complaints with supporting odd architectures in general. I agree that most obscure targets are probably not that much code, since the library is factored with this in mind (e.g. basic WASM support took an afternoon).
It's stated as a non-goal simply because it's not the most valuable thing I can do with my time. My fundamental stance is that writing new Windows or Linux or macOS or WASM programs in C is a good idea, and those are the programs that I write, so that's where my focus is. But if someone would like to come along and write the ~30 syscalls needed to port the library to a new platform, or even register any interest in such, I'd be happy to look into it at that point.
That's fine. Just don't call it "ultra portable" while treating it as a non-goal.
He's already hit the hard targets. I think ultra portable is an accurate description. Portable means able to be ported, not "has been ported".
Like. He's done the first 90%, leaving only the other 90%. And I mean that a little as a joke but also very sincerely. The supported platforms are a decent starting point, but mainstream OSs on little-endian 64-bit processors doesn't strike me as "the hard targets". NetBSD ( https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ ) is ultra portable. This is just portable.
I'm seeing that people have a big issue with the language, but "ultra" doesn't even necessarily mean "total"
Ultra might be a step below total, but the 3 most common OSs on the 2 most common ISAs is ... several steps below ultra.