4 ms·

I don't think the position of the language teams is that static linking is better than dynamic linking. I think that static linking is a significantly easier ta

I don't think the position of the language teams is that static linking is better than dynamic linking. I think that static linking is a significantly easier target for a relatively new language whose _novel_ features make it difficult to define a stable ABI. Under the very specific constraints that Rust is operating in, static linking is currently the best option. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of ABI guarantees that make dynamic linking possible. https://gankra.github.io/blah/swift-abi/ https://gankra.github.io/blah/swift-abi/ is a great, accessible read on some of the challenges of making a stable ABI, so I certainly don't expect it SOON. I do wonder if there is some scheme that could be adopted in a performant way for making the ABI stable as of the Rust Edition, even if it were only for core and std, statically linking everything else?

busterarm 6y ago
Deployability really should be king. I hinted at this in my other post, but I don't think quite enough people think about this. Static linking makes your deployability worries go away. That's not to say that isn't at least possible with dynamic linking, but the complexity and gymnastics will sink you. Everyone gets bit by it eventually.
- kinghajj 6y ago
  Eh, even with Rust's static linking, that's not a guarantee that there will be no worries with deployment. Most SSL libraries in Rust, for instance, currently link to (Open/Libre)SSL dynamically. So you often can't take a Rust binary compiled on a distro with one version of the SSL library, to another distro with a different version.
  - jen20 6y ago
    Much of the ecosystem seems to be trending towards using rustls though, where this is of no concern.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    So you're saying that static linking isn't a guarantee, because the build was polluted with dynamic linking. Isn't that furthering my point?
  - folmar 6y ago
    Actually openssl is pretty compatible between versions, usually not an issue in the real world.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Just to drive the point home. If all of your engineers die in a fiery plane crash en-route to the company offsite, or your datacenter is wiped out in a flood, at least you have your statically linked binary that can run on commodity servers somewhere. You have the peace of mind of knowing that your code as built should be able to run somewhere else in its current state without modification. You don't have to worry about the package availability of something that may have been around when you shipped your servers but may not be when you go to ship them again, or something that only coincidentally worked because your systems were installed via a certain upgrade path that's no longer reproducible. It's a simple matter of business risk and minimizing surprises.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > Deployability really should be king. Not everyone values deployability as much as you (or employers, I suspect) do. On my personal computer I care about getting security patches and disk usage.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Lots of people don't measure risk very well and get hit by black swan events. Over 65% of startups have less than 6 months of cash reserves right now and 74% have been laying off staff. It turns out the majority of people are poor long-term planners. I personally don't care about how you manage your personal workstation, but you're not who most of us are building for. Most of us aren't building tools to support you. We're writing a big ecosystem for everyone to collaborate. In a professional setting, problems with how people manage their computers aren't acceptable. Any decently-sized company will get rid of such a problem quickly. In smaller companies I've seen people get fired over poor management of their workstation's environment.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Not everyone who uses software is a software engineer…
      - busterarm 6y ago
        Not everyone who uses a hammer is in the trades either, but that's who hammers are designed for because that's who is buying.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        I think most of the people who use computers are not software engineers.
        busterarm 6y ago
        The computer isn't the tool here, the context of our conversation is about software.
- eximius 6y ago
  Static linking is more ergonomic for developers. Dynamic linking is a better use of user resources, which is sort of ergonomics. To say one metric should be king without context is missing the point.

busterarm 6y ago

Deployability really should be king. I hinted at this in my other post, but I don't think quite enough people think about this. Static linking makes your deployability worries go away. That's not to say that isn't at least possible with dynamic linking, but the complexity and gymnastics will sink you. Everyone gets bit by it eventually.

kinghajj 6y ago
Eh, even with Rust's static linking, that's not a guarantee that there will be no worries with deployment. Most SSL libraries in Rust, for instance, currently link to (Open/Libre)SSL dynamically. So you often can't take a Rust binary compiled on a distro with one version of the SSL library, to another distro with a different version.
- jen20 6y ago
  Much of the ecosystem seems to be trending towards using rustls though, where this is of no concern.
- busterarm 6y ago
  So you're saying that static linking isn't a guarantee, because the build was polluted with dynamic linking. Isn't that furthering my point?
- folmar 6y ago
  Actually openssl is pretty compatible between versions, usually not an issue in the real world.
busterarm 6y ago
Just to drive the point home. If all of your engineers die in a fiery plane crash en-route to the company offsite, or your datacenter is wiped out in a flood, at least you have your statically linked binary that can run on commodity servers somewhere. You have the peace of mind of knowing that your code as built should be able to run somewhere else in its current state without modification. You don't have to worry about the package availability of something that may have been around when you shipped your servers but may not be when you go to ship them again, or something that only coincidentally worked because your systems were installed via a certain upgrade path that's no longer reproducible. It's a simple matter of business risk and minimizing surprises.
saagarjha 6y ago
> Deployability really should be king. Not everyone values deployability as much as you (or employers, I suspect) do. On my personal computer I care about getting security patches and disk usage.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Lots of people don't measure risk very well and get hit by black swan events. Over 65% of startups have less than 6 months of cash reserves right now and 74% have been laying off staff. It turns out the majority of people are poor long-term planners. I personally don't care about how you manage your personal workstation, but you're not who most of us are building for. Most of us aren't building tools to support you. We're writing a big ecosystem for everyone to collaborate. In a professional setting, problems with how people manage their computers aren't acceptable. Any decently-sized company will get rid of such a problem quickly. In smaller companies I've seen people get fired over poor management of their workstation's environment.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Not everyone who uses software is a software engineer…
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Not everyone who uses a hammer is in the trades either, but that's who hammers are designed for because that's who is buying.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I think most of the people who use computers are not software engineers.
        busterarm 6y ago
        The computer isn't the tool here, the context of our conversation is about software.
eximius 6y ago
Static linking is more ergonomic for developers. Dynamic linking is a better use of user resources, which is sort of ergonomics. To say one metric should be king without context is missing the point.