3 ms·
> but the basic takeaway is that dynamic linking in system toolchains and system runtimes is far more mature than static linking. But that's a chicken-or-egg p
by cosmojg 6y ago
> but the basic takeaway is that dynamic linking in system toolchains and system runtimes is far more mature than static linking.
But that's a chicken-or-egg problem, right? The only way static linking tools will reach parity with dynamic ones in terms of maturity is if static linking replaces dynamic linking as the de facto method of choice.
- pjmlp 6y agoGenerally speaking static compilation has had 30 years of head start across multiple OS and hardware architectures, until dynamic compilation was even an option on mainstream computing, it was after all the only way, with dynamic only available in research platforms like what was going on at Xerox PARC. So this widespread lack of knowledge that static is actually more mature than dynamic is kind of ironic.