> I think this is a great entrypoint into the static/dynamic argument and I'd love to argue with some people about it. I don't think it is. You start from an i

> I think this is a great entrypoint into the static/dynamic argument and I'd love to argue with some people about it. I don't think it is. You start from an irrational and unsubstantiated belief that ignores any of the basic usecases of shared libraries. > I believe dynamic used to make sense but no longer does in the vast majority of cases. It's your personal belief, and one that's unsubstantiated and os based on ignorance. > Static binaries have their costs, but are so much easier to reason about. That assertion is completely irrelevant, as it fails to address any of the usecases for shared libraries. Being able to run code, and other dubious claims of simplicity, don't even qualify as questioning the purpose of shared libraries.