Dynamic linking is the shit! It's so undersold. Static linking has been convenient & simple, but it gives up so much awesomeness. On consumer systems, memory p

Dynamic linking is the shit! It's so undersold. Static linking has been convenient & simple, but it gives up so much awesomeness. On consumer systems, memory pressure is real, and being able to have quarter your program be effectively free is enormously helpful. Cache hits also go way up, which can be even more vital. Server side, it depends. If you just run a db server and a monolith, it indeed doesnt matter. But if I look at the hosts we run at my work, if you look at many clusters, they're big nodes and they're running hundreds of processes. If we could get back decent double digit percent of memory that would be great. If caches would get more effective that'd be super. We're leaving a ton on the table because nothing is shared. There's similar works to win back basic obvious performance happening in a number of places. Composefs has shown up on HN a couple times, trying to let containers effectively share files & page-cache. Will I deny that dynamic linming has brought pain? No. But I think it's important to recognize that this is a fallback position. If we were better about not breaking conpatibility, not introducing changes, this would be less of an issue. If we had better software testing that could help us detect & see incompatibility faults as they arise, if we could canary test a new software Bill-of-Materials & have some early indicators, we might have, a decade ago, not collectively decided to give up & give in to "binaries just work".