2 ms·
In the era of static linking (golang, rust), sure, why not. These days getting dependencies and the right version of the runtime is considered a harder proble
by dorfsmay 7y ago
In the era of static linking (golang, rust), sure, why not.
These days getting dependencies and the right version of the runtime is considered a harder problem.
I personally feel like the world is wasting a huge amount of memory because of this, but have to agree that distributing apps is hard.
- pjmlp 7y agoOh the irony of seeing such comment. I still remember when dynamic linking was being introduced into OSes, Amiga libraries, Windows 3.x, the very first Linux kernel to support dynamic linking,....
- dorfsmay 7y agoCan you explain why it's ironic?
- pjmlp 7y agoBecause the large majority of OS only allowed for static linking. When dynamic linking was finally possible, it was welcomed with pleasure, because not only it allowed to save disk and memory space, it also opened the door for extensibility via plugins, and dynamic behavior without restarts, instead slow IPC with one process per plugin/action. Now thanks to missteps of glibc design and .so hell on Linux (even worse than on Windows due to all distributions), many devs embrace static linking as some golden solution.
- dorfsmay 7y agoWhich was my point when I said I feel the world is wasting a huge amount of memory. It feels like a step backwards.