On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 8:45 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 11:25:26PM +0100, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: > > Hare is a systems programming language designed to be simple, stable, > > and robust. Hare uses a static type system, manual memory management, > > and a minimal runtime. It is well-suited to writing operating systems, > > system tools, compilers, networking software, and other low-level, > > high performance tasks. > > It's cool to see new languages and tools being developed. > > The Change page text contains a few surprising statements though: > > > Leaving `binutils` and GCC aside, bootstrapping a Hare tool chain > > only takes a few minutes. > I guess this doesn't really apply to Fedora users, because everyti > will packaged. Or are people expected to bootstrap something > regularly? Nobody's expected to bootstrap a Hare tool chain, but if anyone ever needs to bootstrap one for any reason, it only takes a few minutes to bootstrap the tool chain. Say for example, if someone wanted to work on porting Hare to a new architecture where GCC and binutils already exist, rebuilding the rest of the Hare tool chain is essentially painless. The hare package I'm preparing doesn't need a two-phase bootstrap, so you don't even need to bother with building the package once and rebuilding it again (the Hare build driver is written in Hare, but the harec compiler is written in C). > > Unlike other language tool chains, Hare modules are meant to be the > > responsibility of system package managers like DNF. Packaging Hare > > modules and applications should result in little friction. > Can you expand a bit on this? Is the workflow for updates of software > written in Hare going to be somehow different than e.g. for C > applications? What does "responsibility of system package managers" > mean?
