The GNU Make Standard Library (GMSL) offers a collection of reusable Makefile functions designed to simplify common build tasks and promote best practices in GNU Make projects. It provides functions for tasks like finding files, managing dependencies, working with directories, handling shell commands, and more. By incorporating GMSL, Makefiles can become more concise, readable, and maintainable, reducing boilerplate and improving consistency across projects. The library is designed to be modular, allowing users to include only the functions they need.
JavaScript's new Temporal API provides a modern, comprehensive, and consistent way to work with dates and times. It addresses the shortcomings of the built-in Date object with clear and well-defined types for instants, durations, time zones, and calendar systems. Temporal offers powerful features like easy date/time arithmetic, formatting, parsing, and manipulation, making complex time-related tasks significantly simpler and more reliable. The API is now stage 3, meaning its core functionalities are stable and are implemented in current browsers, paving the way for wider adoption and improved date/time handling in JavaScript applications.
Hacker News users generally expressed enthusiasm for the Temporal API, viewing it as a significant improvement over the problematic native Date object. Several commenters highlighted Temporal's immutability and clarity around time zones as major advantages. Some discussed the long and arduous process of getting Temporal standardized, acknowledging the efforts of the involved developers. A few users raised concerns, questioning the API's verbosity and the potential difficulties in migrating existing codebases. Others pointed out the need for better documentation and broader community adoption. Some comments touched upon specific features, such as the plain-date and plain-time objects, and compared Temporal to similar date/time libraries in other languages like Java and Python.
This blog post details how to leverage the Rust standard library (std) within applications running on the NuttX Real-Time Operating System (RTOS), a common choice for embedded systems. The author demonstrates a method to link the Rust std components, specifically write() for console output, with NuttX's system calls. This allows developers to write Rust code that feels idiomatic, using familiar functions like println!(), while still targeting the resource-constrained environment of NuttX. The process involves creating a custom target specification JSON file and implementing shim functions that bridge the gap between the Rust standard library's expectations and the underlying NuttX syscalls. The result is a simplified development experience, enabling more portable and maintainable Rust code on embedded platforms.
Hacker News users discuss the challenges and advantages of using Rust with NuttX. Some express skepticism about the real-world practicality and performance benefits, particularly regarding memory usage and the overhead of Rust's safety features in embedded systems. Others highlight the potential for improved reliability and security that Rust offers, contrasting it with the inherent risks of C in such environments. The complexities of integrating Rust's memory management with NuttX's existing mechanisms are also debated, along with the potential need for careful optimization and configuration to realize Rust's benefits in resource-constrained systems. Several commenters point out that while intriguing, the project is still experimental and requires more maturation before becoming a viable option for production-level embedded development. Finally, the difficulty of porting existing NuttX drivers to Rust and the lack of a robust Rust ecosystem for embedded development are identified as potential roadblocks.
Summary of Comments ( 69 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945146
Hacker News users discussed the GNU Make Standard Library (GMSL), mostly focusing on its potential usefulness and questioning its necessity. Some commenters appreciated the idea of standardized functions for common Make tasks, finding it could improve readability and reduce boilerplate. Others argued that existing solutions like shell scripts or including Makefiles suffice, viewing GMSL as adding unnecessary complexity. The discussion also touched upon the discoverability of such a library and whether the chosen license (GPLv3) would limit its adoption. Some expressed concern about the potential for GPLv3 to "infect" projects using the library. Finally, a few users pointed out alternatives like using a higher-level build system or other scripting languages to replace Make entirely.
The Hacker News post titled "GNU Make Standard Library" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945146) has generated several comments discussing the utility and implementation of the library.
One of the most compelling comments highlights the tension between wanting a standardized Make library and the existing diversity of Make implementations. The commenter expresses concern that relying on a specific library might limit the portability of Makefiles, especially given subtle differences in behavior across various Make versions. They suggest that while a standard library could be beneficial, ensuring compatibility across different Make implementations would be crucial for widespread adoption.
Another commenter points out the challenge of implementing a truly portable library due to GNU Make's historical evolution and the resulting inconsistencies in its feature set. They emphasize that features like
guileintegration, though powerful, can further complicate the development of a universal library.The value of the library's functions, such as
abspath, is also discussed. One commenter questions the necessity of such a function, arguing that similar functionality can be achieved through existing Make mechanisms. This sparks a discussion about the readability and maintainability benefits of using library functions, as opposed to relying on potentially more obscure Make syntax.Some commenters express their appreciation for the library, finding it useful and well-designed. They highlight its potential to improve the organization and maintainability of complex Makefiles. The ability to encapsulate common logic into reusable functions is seen as a significant advantage.
The discussion also touches upon alternative approaches, like using shell scripts within Makefiles. While acknowledging the potential of shell scripts, commenters point out that integrating a dedicated Make library offers advantages in terms of consistency and code organization.
Several comments delve into specific technical aspects, like the use of
$(eval ...)and its implications for performance and debugging. Concerns about potential overhead and difficulties in tracing execution flow are raised. Suggestions for alternative implementation strategies are offered.Overall, the comments reflect a mixed reception to the GNU Make Standard Library. While many appreciate the potential benefits of standardized functions and improved code organization, concerns about portability, compatibility with different Make versions, and implementation details are also expressed. The discussion provides valuable insights into the complexities of developing and utilizing a standard library within the GNU Make ecosystem.