La même remarque a été faite sur Hacker News (c'est même le fil de lecture affiché en premier), je te livre les réponses de l'auteur de cette bibliothèque :
There are very few C libraries which compile, stock, against the matrix of toolchains, ABIs, and operating systems that this library does. For the subset of machines which run, I don't know, 99.9% of all instructions (i.e. x86_64 + aarch64, Linux + Darwin + Windows), the library just works. This is a definition of portability. Why would portability be a binary of supporting every possible system or being hard tied to a single one?
et un peu plus tard
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.
NB : Faut pas prendre son travail à la légère, vu certains noms illustres de commentateurs (dans d'autres fils)
[^] # Re: Ford ?
Posté par orfenor . En réponse au lien sp.h is the standard library that C deserves (nouvelle bibliothèque standard pour le langage C). Évalué à 8 (+6/-0). Dernière modification le 24 mai 2026 à 13:11.
La même remarque a été faite sur Hacker News (c'est même le fil de lecture affiché en premier), je te livre les réponses de l'auteur de cette bibliothèque :
et un peu plus tard
NB : Faut pas prendre son travail à la légère, vu certains noms illustres de commentateurs (dans d'autres fils)