4 ms·

Static linkage is a beautiful prospect, beckoning with promises of less time in dependency hell.

sevensor 8y ago
Although that sounds nice, dependency hell has never been a problem for me under Arch. Sometimes AUR-installed packages go out of date, but then you rebuild them and everything is OK again.
pjmlp 8y ago
As someone that lived through the introduction of dynamic linking and threading into UNIX, it is kind of ironic to see the return to the past being celebrated with joy.
- fao_ 8y ago
  Dynamic Linking was actually heralded against by many of the foundational minds of UNIX. Because the flaws outweight the benefits. Do not quote me on this, but IIRC Plan9 does not have dynamic linking for this very reason. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Plan 9 was a middle step for Inferno, the OS HNers keep forgetting about. Dynamic linking is everywhere on Inferno, implemented by the same Rob Pike of that email thread. Also many seem unaware that Go supports dynamic linking for a couple of versions already. The only thing missing is building plugin libraries on Windows.
    - fao_ 8y ago
      > Plan 9 was a middle step for Inferno, the OS HNers keep forgetting about. I am aware of Inferno. Also, the irony in talking about "HNers" as an Other, when you yourself are, to me, a random HNer. It's like an Anon implicitly complaining about an Anon, rather amusing. > Dynamic linking is everywhere on Inferno, implemented by the same Rob Pike of that email thread. Sure, but (if I remember correctly) Inferno also is written on/as a virtual machine. Inferno had rather different aims compared to most "UNIX" systems, whereas Plan 9 was a unification and generalization of the "UNIX" paradigm. Windows NT (Or was it DOS) was built, in part, off of UNIX. That doesn't mean that we should look to Windows NT as an ideal UNIX system, because the design considerations are different, and the aims of the system are different. > Also many seem unaware that Go supports dynamic linking for a couple of versions already. Sure, that's not to say there wasn't a huge amount of debate around that. I believe in the end it was more or less agreed that language uptake was more important in this case, but I could be wrong. Regardless, if one is properly appraised of the debate around Go supporting dynamic linking, you can find Uriel, et al. have some solid arguments against dynamic linking.

Although that sounds nice, dependency hell has never been a problem for me under Arch. Sometimes AUR-installed packages go out of date, but then you rebuild them and everything is OK again.

pjmlp 8y ago

As someone that lived through the introduction of dynamic linking and threading into UNIX, it is kind of ironic to see the return to the past being celebrated with joy.

fao_ 8y ago
Dynamic Linking was actually heralded against by many of the foundational minds of UNIX. Because the flaws outweight the benefits. Do not quote me on this, but IIRC Plan9 does not have dynamic linking for this very reason. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Plan 9 was a middle step for Inferno, the OS HNers keep forgetting about. Dynamic linking is everywhere on Inferno, implemented by the same Rob Pike of that email thread. Also many seem unaware that Go supports dynamic linking for a couple of versions already. The only thing missing is building plugin libraries on Windows.
  - fao_ 8y ago
    > Plan 9 was a middle step for Inferno, the OS HNers keep forgetting about. I am aware of Inferno. Also, the irony in talking about "HNers" as an Other, when you yourself are, to me, a random HNer. It's like an Anon implicitly complaining about an Anon, rather amusing. > Dynamic linking is everywhere on Inferno, implemented by the same Rob Pike of that email thread. Sure, but (if I remember correctly) Inferno also is written on/as a virtual machine. Inferno had rather different aims compared to most "UNIX" systems, whereas Plan 9 was a unification and generalization of the "UNIX" paradigm. Windows NT (Or was it DOS) was built, in part, off of UNIX. That doesn't mean that we should look to Windows NT as an ideal UNIX system, because the design considerations are different, and the aims of the system are different. > Also many seem unaware that Go supports dynamic linking for a couple of versions already. Sure, that's not to say there wasn't a huge amount of debate around that. I believe in the end it was more or less agreed that language uptake was more important in this case, but I could be wrong. Regardless, if one is properly appraised of the debate around Go supporting dynamic linking, you can find Uriel, et al. have some solid arguments against dynamic linking.