And this is what I get for travelling ... :D Certainly CoApp supports the use of static libraries; and there is really only a small set of really valuable reasons one might want to use static code.
The top of that list, is PGO (Profile Guided optimization) ... by allowing the compiler/linker the opportunity to inline, rewrite and reorder code, you could squeeze out orders of magnitude better performance in a particular EXE. I'm not saying that I encourage it, but I still see the purpose. We are definitly recommeding that developers go with shared libraries as much as possible. This offers the best possible experience for the end user. G ________________________________________ From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft....@lists.launchpad.net [coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft....@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of Olaf van der Spek [olafvds...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 8:10 AM To: Trevor Dennis Cc: coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] use of static libs permitted? On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Trevor Dennis <tre...@dennis-it.com> wrote: > One of the main goals of the CoApp project though is to reduce code > duplication. > For example, we want to get down to only one copy of ZLIB.DLL on a computer > with all applications using that single copy. If projects start statically > linking those libraries in, we lose the main benefit of CoApp. Obviously static linking isn't meant for CoApp packages. It's meant for software distributed without CoApp. Olaf _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
