> Dynamic linking is in my opinion not that useful anymore in this day and age where the few MB of RAM and disk space you save is not worth the hassle But spac

> Dynamic linking is in my opinion not that useful anymore in this day and age where the few MB of RAM and disk space you save is not worth the hassle But space in fast cache IS worth the hassle. It's still extremely limited, and since we're hitting the limits of moore's law we're not getting much more of it. The article touches on this. Statically linking can be a case of "tragedy of the commons" if you statically link a single program, you only see the benefits. But if you statically link all programs in a system, vs dynamic linking of all programs, you're giving up on the chance of having shared caching of commonly used pieces of code between programs, and you're giving up on minimizing code size so you don't have to prematurely evict useful code from the cache. The article touches on this subject: > It’s worth noting that the Swift devs [...] care much more about code sizes (as in the amount of executable code produced). More specifically, they care a lot more about making efficient usage of the cpu’s instruction cache, because they believe it’s better for system-wide power usage. Apple championing this concern makes a lot of sense, given their suite of battery-powered devices.