On 2/16/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For what purposes are dynamic Chicken libraries really essential? Right > now I'm winning; my -DPIC problems were merely a typo in a define. But, > building dynamic libraries is definitely a source of complication and > maintenance difficulty. An associate who offered to help me out, > suggested that I just drop it, that it's pointless in the scheme of > things. I replied that I didn't know enough about how people use > Chicken to make that decision. So, I am asking you, how / why do you > use dynamic libraries? If you didn't have them available, how would > that impact you?
Do you mean dynamic libraries of the kind like libchicken.dll or dynamically loadable, compiled code (eggs, essentially)? There are basically these reasons: - reduce memory-usage by allowing multiple executing programs to refer to the same code image - allow dynamically loaded code to link with the runtime-system of the loading executable, which is not always possible (Windows, I think) without putting the r/t into a dll Handling the peculiarities of building dlls on different OSes is PITA, I agree with you there. But I seee no reason to use a different approach. Chicken is not a whole-program compiler and uses dynamic linking and loading to a large extent. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
