No, people are just inflicting that upon themselves for no good reason. I ship software built with the same clang / libc++ toolchain targetting Mac / Windows / Linux and things works absolutely fine.
Is it an open-source library?
I meant that you can specify symbol versions to link to glibc specifically.
https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/ld/VERSION.html
> They wanted to support multiple platforms, that multiple platforms implied multiple compilers was part of the portability issues the original goal led to.
He could have used gcc on different platforms too. He writes:
"the platonic ideal portable C exists only as a hypothetical construct in the C standard. The C that exists in the real world is whatever Microsoft, Apple, and others have shipped. That C is a mess"
I.e. his problem could have been solved by sticking to one compiler, be it Rust or Clang ...
You're confusing glibc and GLib...
> He could have used gcc on different platforms too.
That certainly would have solved the multiple platform issue, I'm sure gcc has great and easy support for producing VS-compatible dlls, and that there's nothing an ios dev likes to hear more than "you can use GCC to compile libimagequant".
That doesn't mean anything.
> Anyway, I feel the author is a bit unfair. He traded supporting multiple compilers
They wanted to support multiple platforms, that multiple platforms implied multiple compilers was part of the portability issues the original goal led to.