[bbor]

Thanks for the specifics, really fascinating list! I'm sure I'm being a bit flippant, but it's pretty funny that a list including the Playstation 1, N64, and Apple Watches is in the same conversation as systems that need to compile git from source.

Anyone know of anything on that list with more than a thousand SWE-coded users? Presumably there's at least one or two for those in the know?

[3036e4]

What I like about seeing a project support a long list of totally irrelevant old obscure platforms (like Free Pascal does, and probably GCC) is that it gives some hope that they will support some future obscure platform that I may care about. It shows a sign of good engineering culture. If a project supports only 64-bit arm+x86 on the three currently most popular operating systems that is a red flag for future compatibility risks.

[crote]

The problem is that "support" usually isn't quite the right word. In practice for obscure platforms it is often closer to "isn't known to be horribly broken". Rust at least states this explicitly with their Tier 1/2/3 system, but the same will apply to every project.

Platform support needs to be maintained. There is no way around that. Any change in the codebase has the possibility of introducing subtle platform-specific bugs. When platform support means that some teenager a decade ago got it to compile during the summer holiday and upstreamed her patches, that's not worth a lot. Proper platform support means having people actively contributing to the codebase, regularly running test suites, and making sure that the project stays functional on that platform.

On top of this, it's important to remember that platform support isn't free either. Those platform-specific patches and workarounds can and will hold back development for all the other platforms. And if a platform doesn't have a maintainer willing to contribute to keeping those up-to-date, it probably also doesn't have a developer who's doing the basic testing and bug fixing, so its support is broken anyways.

In the end, is it really such a big deal to scrap support for something which is already broken and unlikely to ever be fixed? At a certain point you're just lying to yourself about the platform being supported - isn't it better to accept reality and formally deprecate it?

In theory I agree with you, and code written in a platform-agnostic way is definitely something we should strive for, but in practice: can keeping broken code around really be called "good engineering culture"?

[whalee]

I don't think the concern is whether a user can compile git from source on said platform, but rather whether the rust standard lib is well supported on said platform, which is required for cross compiling.

[loeg]

In practice, the only systems any significant number of people care about running Git on are arm64 and x86-64, and those are very well supported.