5 ms·
> I build my programs to be append-only, such that users can always update to new versions with confidence. And in this wonderful world where developers are co
by AshamedCaptain 2y ago
> I build my programs to be append-only, such that users can always update to new versions with confidence.
And in this wonderful world where developers are competent enough to manage this, and therefore there are no issues when libraries are updated (append-only, right?).... why do you have a problem with shared linking again? Or is this a case where you think yourself as an "above average" programmer?
- sunshowers 2y agoI think the difference is that library interfaces tend to be vastly more complex than application interfaces, partly because processes form fairly natural failure domains (if my application does something wrong it exits with a non-zero code, but if my library does something wrong my entire program is suddenly corrupted.) There are also significant benefits to static linking (such as inlining and LTO) that are not relevant across process boundaries. But yes, in a sense I'm pushing the problem up the stack a bit. > is this a case where you think yourself as an "above average" programmer? I've been very lucky in life to learn from some of the best minds in the industry.