3 ms·
Sometimes solutions give rise to new categories of issues, and it's difficult to connect the dots to the root cause. If you believe dynamic linking hasn't intro
by jart 6y ago
Sometimes solutions give rise to new categories of issues, and it's difficult to connect the dots to the root cause. If you believe dynamic linking hasn't introduced an even broader array of difficulties for C coders needing to support both, then please read Ulrich Drepper's DSO tutorial which gives a pretty good rundown: https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/m/a/1/e/dsohowto.pdf https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/m/a/1/e/dsoho... If I remember correctly, it was largely SCO Group that pushed UNIX vendors back in the 1990's to switch to a WIN32 linking model. I didn't find their arguments that compelling, to be honest, due to not citing alternatives considered.
- lokedhs 6y agoUnrelated told your post, but please don't suggest that SCO Group was involved. The company in the 90's was simply SCO, and was a pretty cool company. SCO Group was renamed as such from Caldera in the early 00's and was the people suing Linux users for copyright infringement.
- pjmlp 6y agoDynamic linking was already common outside UNIX (Amiga, Xerox, Atari, MacOS, MS-DOS overlays and extenders, IBM and Unisys mainframes, Oberon/Lilith) so what does Win32 even have to do with it?