Even if that would be true, still every language that isn't C (or JS in the browser) needs to link or build against some C (or Fortran), which results in more or less working solutions on how to integrate with or build C sources. Of course you may not see that (as long as it works), because somebody else has wrapped that up in a package (or whatever) for your language of choice, but somebody has to do that.

> ship the dependencies with the program.

My post should have been the answer to this argument: this is not possible for example when "shipping" the source for a cross-platform library. Or a cross-platform end-user program/app. Or just about anything which isn't "just" some web-backend or a server of some kind.

Does that mean _you_ need a complicated (I'd call that "working for anything but the most basic stuff") build-system? No.

I am a bit puzzled by this phrase:

> The solution is not to ship complicated and bug infested build systems, it is to fix the dependency problem in the same way any other language has done so far

But any other language than C or C++ (sadly, _way_ less than "any other") solves that by using a complicated and bug infested build system(s) and package manager(s) or a combination of both.

With maybe one (or two) exceptions, those other languages' build systems are incredibly susceptible to supply-chain attacks.

And, to be honest, unless you have a burning need for autoconf's main value proposition (cross-compiling for a different target system), plain gnu-make and storing your dependencies in your repo is probably a lot safer than many other build systems.

I've built software with dependencies on libpng, libcurl, libsodium and more and was confident in the security of the resulting binary. I've also done one or two node.js projects, and had much less confidence that it won't be supply-chain attacked on the next build.

In other words, if you also don't need to target MacOS or *BSD, which were the parent's stated requirements. MacOS can't run Docker, and BSDs seem to be unstable/unsupported targets, so the only stable way to get Docker on such a machine is to run Linux in a VM. Which isn't really a solution for cross-platform development, as it is a denial of it.

(Also, if you were to go down that route, why not just ship the VM; rather than dragging in all the crap that Docker entails?)