4 ms·
Has this changed from the 90s/2000s? I've been on Lin/Mac for the past decade, but back then many libraries (DLLs) required (msxml4.dll, msvbvm50.dll) - note sp
by r00fus 6y ago
Has this changed from the 90s/2000s? I've been on Lin/Mac for the past decade, but back then many libraries (DLLs) required (msxml4.dll, msvbvm50.dll) - note specific versions.
- alkonaut 6y agoTypically that's not a problem any more, no.
- r00fus 6y agoSo is everything statically linked now?
- thrower123 6y agoNo, you just usually ship all of your DLLs and put them next to your exe, if that is in any way possible. It might as well be statically linked...
- Tuna-Fish 6y agoYou can't statically link because of licenses, but your own directory is higher in the dll load path than anywhere else, so you just ship a copy of all the dlls you use. Basically, this is a good way of getting most of the worst features of both dynamic and static linking.
- plorkyeran 6y agoWindows has supported installing multiple versions of the same system library ever since Windows XP via WinSxS. It's been a non-issue for a long time.
- alkonaut 6y agoStill, for application developers the idea of installing "system-wide libraries" is all but gone. An application installer will just install to \Programs and that's normally it, even for very large applications (Obviously something system-y like a driver still installs system files). Even things that used to be typical system things like runtimes (C++, .NET) can now be locally deployed, which is nice. In the 90's it wasn't uncommon for installers to just poop application files or config files into Windows\System32.