On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:16:53 -0500, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote:
== Quote from Adam D. Ruppe ([email protected])'s article
I'm generally for static linking anything that isn't part of the base OS
install, just to ease the process for end users.
One thing that has escaped discussion in the static vs. dynamic linking
debate so
far is **templates**. If you use template-heavy code all over your
library, that
pretty much rules out dynamic linking. If you avoid templates so you can
dynamically link, you're avoiding IMHO the single most important feature
that
distinguishes D from other languages and are writing non-idiomatic D.
You may as
well use some other language that's better suited to doing things without
templates. Therefore, I suspect D culture will be very biased toward
static
linking for that reason.
dynamic linking does not prevent template use. The C++ standard library
which arguably contains mostly templates still has a .so size of 900k on
my linux box.
You would most likely be using many templates that are already
instantiated by phobos in the dynamic library. Anything specialized will
be compiled into your app. You can have it both ways!
-Steve
