# What hardcore BSD developers has to say about musl (standrad C library implementation) ?



## 2600 (Oct 13, 2019)

Does anyone here use or recommend the alternative C library from *musl-libc.org* ?

"*musl* is _lightweight_, _fast_, _simple_, _free_, and strives to be _correct_ in the sense of standards-conformance and safety."

Is that true ? Are there any drawbacks by using such library ?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 14, 2019)

The standard library is free and standards compliant so it's no different on two of the five points. Simple and fast would need to be looked into. Lightweight is strange because you only use the parts of the library you need.

I have been aware of musl but never tried it so I can't knock it or promote it and will just continue to use the standard library.

EDIT: 





> for linux


 Well screw that.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Oct 14, 2019)

I am not a hardcore BSD developer or ever a C developer but I do suppose musl is mostly a non non-sense Linux answer to the glibc monstrously.

*[EDIT]*

Given the fact musl is used by the seL4 people, I think this is safe to assume that is a reliable libc (at least their version).


----------



## kpedersen (Oct 14, 2019)

I believe Alpine Linux uses it. The only drawbacks I have seen is when running proprietary things with it such as the Nvidia blob driver or vmware.

I like the idea of it but for a server or development workstation it is possibly a little too "non-standard". Any issues you encounter will be your own fault basically


----------

