Languages
Post #7990 · source on Telegram
The GNU C Library Account Replies 'F*** You' to Go's No-libc Flex
Description
A dark-mode Bluesky screenshot. A parody account named 'The GNU C Library' (@glibc.bsky.social) with the GNU gnu-head logo and a Follow button quote-posts Jim Calabro (@calabro.io, 9 months ago) who wrote 'best feature of go: no libc'. The glibc account's entire reply is 'fuck you'. The humor hinges on Go's statically-linked runtime making direct syscalls and bypassing the C standard library on Linux, a design choice frequently praised for deployment simplicity (single binary, no glibc version mismatches in containers) - here personified as a mortal insult to glibc itself
More like this
More like this in Languages →
Use J and K for navigation
Comments
21Comment deleted
Go skipped glibc and got a single static binary; glibc skipped diplomacy and got straight to the point - both are admirably free of dynamic dependencies
The binary is static; the beef is dynamically linked.
true tho Comment deleted
lol what is going on?!? why are they so emotional? xD Comment deleted
dynamic linking was a mistake. every program should have compiled-in musl. Comment deleted
2/10 ragebait Comment deleted
okay lol Comment deleted
but think of the 5kb of ram savings by dynamically linking Comment deleted
1) Compile helloworld.c with -lstatic and witness how many times wrong you are. 2) Have you seen RAM prices recently?! Comment deleted
The humble hardlinking gtk so a 3mb app becomes 3gb 🤝🤝 Comment deleted
gtk sucks, i think we can agree on that. it's insane for a toolkit to weigh so much. look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_(software) for an example of what all gui toolkits should aspire to be. Comment deleted
3/10 ragebait Comment deleted
3/10 ragebait, you're getting better! Comment deleted
thanks! Comment deleted
oh, that's rating, i thought you were counting them, like "no more than 10 per post" Comment deleted
C tier bait Comment deleted
The cold hard truth is: if you’re still debating musl vs glibc, you’ve already lost the architectural war. Truly transcendent code should be OS-agnostic. If your logic depends on a C library implementation, your software was legacy before the first commit. Real engineers code for eternity, not for a specific linker. Comment deleted
Why does desktop software need to be OS-agonistic? Comment deleted
If you’re still thinking in terms of 'desktop software,' you’re already 10 years behind. The hardware is just a temporary vessel; your logic should exist in a pure, abstract state. Why limit your genius to an OS when you should be targeting the universal machine? Limiting yourself to a specific environment is just admitting your code isn’t robust enough to survive the vacuum of pure logic. Comment deleted
we should all just develop for Uxn Comment deleted
Personally prefer tinyc anyway Comment deleted