4 ms·
> The only argument presented against static linking is that when a library is updated rebuilding dependants takes longer (and people will have to download bigg
by UncleEntity 6y ago
> The only argument presented against static linking is that when a library is updated rebuilding dependants takes longer (and people will have to download bigger updates but I doubt many people care about that).
Not really, the argument is that instead of rebuilding one library you now have to rebuild hundreds of applications to see the benefits for whatever the library update was for...assuming upstream even cares enough to bump the version number for the who knows how many libs they are vendoring because they have other stuff to do which is way more important.
- IshKebab 6y agoRight but that can be done automatically for static linking just as easily as it can for dynamic linking. So the only difference is time and downloads. I think you're conflating static linking and bundling and vendoring a bit, like the author is. They're all different things.