3 ms·
They didn't claim it was better than static. That doesn't make it worse than static either. They are two different answers for two different problems. It's sim
by Brian_K_White 2y ago
They didn't claim it was better than static. That doesn't make it worse than static either. They are two different answers for two different problems.
It's simply that when you do want external but bundled neighboring libs, there is a good way to do it.
- vlovich123 2y agoWhat advantage does sibling libs provide over static linking?
- kazinator 2y agoThis becomes the same question as when and why are dynamic libraries useful over static linking! Suppose whatever you are shipping consists of five executables, which have a few hundred kilobytes of their own code and a 5 megabyte library. If they statically absorb the library, they all become 5.5 megabyte binaries. Adjust that to whatever sizes you would consider relevant. You can make it clear when a bug is fixed in a library or one of the executables. If you have a patch update, users can see that only a shared library changed or only a certain executable. When hunting a bug, you may have certain possibilities (within limits that depend on your library API maintenance), like trying an older executable with the same library, or older library with the same executable.
- vlovich123 2y agoBundle the executables into a single larger mega-executable with symlinks as the “true” entrypoint name.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoMeaningless question. Simetimes it's what you need. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes you want to write the arabic digit 3, sometimes you want to write the word three. What is the advantage of writing out three? The advantage is whatever the advantage is in those situations when you want it. The possible details are infinite.