3 ms·
See...there's the thing; dynamic linking was originally done by Unixen in the '80s, way before Linux, as a way to cope w/ original X11 on machines that had onl
by linksnapzz 1y ago
See...there's the thing; dynamic linking was originally done by Unixen in the '80s, way before Linux, as a way to cope w/ original X11 on machines that had only 2-4MB of RAM.
X was (in)famous for memory use (see the chapter in the 'Unix-Hater's Handbook'); and shared libs was the consensus as to how to make the best of a difficult situation, see:
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/
- DrScientist 1y agoAccording to your link ( great link BTW ) Rob Pike said dynamic linking for X was a net negative on memory and speed and only had a tiny advantage in disk space. My preference is to bring dependencies in at the source code level and compile them in to the app - stops the library level massive dependency trees ( A need part of B but because some other part of B needs C our dependency tool brings in C, and then D and so on ).
- linksnapzz 1y agoThis seems to have worked out well for the plan9 guys. It's just not a popular approach nowadays.