3 ms·
I'm not sure I understand why static vs dynamic linking isn't completely orthogonal to this discussion; if you had your paths for dynamic linking in as orderly
by glangdale 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand why static vs dynamic linking isn't completely orthogonal to this discussion; if you had your paths for dynamic linking in as orderly a state as we're expecting our xxx/bin paths to be, then dynamic linking would work just fine. There's no real reason that you couldn't have xxx/lib paths set up paralleling the xxx/bin directories and unioned together in the same way.
The static library fetish was one of the things that helped keep Plan 9 marginal (along with the generalized NIH or "Invented Here But By Bjarne So Who Cares" attitude).
- MisterTea 6y agoSun started the dynamic library fetish. Unix never used dynamic libs prior to that. If you actually took the time to study plan 9 you would understand the architecture and why dynamic libs are not necessary. The idea is to move that logic into another program where it can run in its own namespace, in isolation. You then use pipes or 9p to communicate between them.