4 ms·

It would be even more fantastic if there was a way to compile everything into a single binary and distribute that so that there are no dependencies (other than

• hedora 1y ago
  Yeah, but what if you wanted multiple copies of a library and also wanted to let more than one program share each version? You’d need some sort of system that stores files and lets you name those files and also makes it possible for software to look them up by name. Oh wait…
  • eikenberry 1y ago
    Shared libraries suck. It is much better to have a single binary w/ zero library dependencies. The only reason we can't have this is because of sub-standard tooling that makes compiling so expensive that we must suffer shared libraries.
    • 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
      Not really. More like, there are some languages that don't support static builds (Python, glibc) and other languages that don't support dynamic libraries (rust) and I'm so tired and this unit was built to frolic in meadows
    • tgpc 1y ago
      shared libs happened because memory was scarce pretty cool that we are undoing it as a design decision but it will take a long time
      • hedora 1y ago
        You missed the joke. Flatpak is not getting rid of shared libraries. They're just reimplementing them in a way that's strictly worse in multiple ways. Re-read the section "How Flatpak Tries to Save Space: Runtimes and Deduplication" in the article.