Simple software manifesto
"Are we simple yet?"
https://arewesimpleyet.org/
Huh? All those "Not There" points seem very badly researched:
libc: musl and a horde of other small ones
init/supervisor: plenty also, sinit from suckless.org comes into mind spontaneously
High-level programming: ... what exactly are you looking for when you use C without macros?
GUIs: There isn't just Qt and GTK, yk? Imgui, 60FPS, etc...
1/2
I'll give in to the assembler/binutils point. We need that (llvm is simple to use, but that's not the 'simple' they seek). I can't tell whether tcc would fit this category though.
About the kernel: you can tune Linux down as much as you want. Once you remove all unneeded drivers/architectures, the code is actually almost as simple as you can get without giving up features.
2/3
And build system: Yeah Make is hell, clang too. But there are some interesting upcoming projects. I'm personally keeping an eye on nobuild[0].
So yeah. Pretty bad article IMHO.
@tobtobxx @torresjrjr There's also redo, which is more similar to make but without many of its problems
@cnx I dislike zig build. Writing build code in "real" language might seem convenient, but it requires in cross-compiling for example, both host and cross toolchains must be installed. And the builds take longer because you compile twice (and it's pretty bad with LLVM). Also, I see no reason why the same thing zig does can't be done using make or redo
@torresjrjr, @yyp and @tobtobxx, you might be interested in zig build as well