Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:08:17 +0300, so wrote: > On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:41:26 +0300, retard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:27:23 +0300, so wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:39:41 +0300, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-10-06 20:01, Walter Bright wrote: >>>>> so wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:40:11 +0300, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> You are aware of that C is (almost always) dynamically linked with >>>>>>> the standard and runtime library but D (usually) is not? Using D1 >>>>>>> and Tango on Mac OS X (which supports dynamic linking of the >>>>>>> standard library) gives an executable of the size 16 KB if I >>>>>>> recall correctly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Which is the next thing Walter will be working on after this 64bit >>>>>> business. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, making Phobos a shared library rather than statically linking >>>>> it will pretty much resolve this problem. >>>> >>>> Of course when Phobos is a dynamic library you would probably need to >>>> distributed it as well and then you will have same size again or even >>>> larger. >>>> >>>> >>> Eh? >> >> If the DMD/Phobos distribution doesn't provide compatible API/ABI >> between DMD/Phobos versions, the dynamic library has very little use >> since all libraries need to be distributed with the 3rd party >> application. > > If we want to distribute a single shared library, until things get > settled there is nothing we can do. > Also we are not talking about a single exec per project right? If this > is what you mean, yes i agree it has no use, but if in your project you > got more than one executable or shared library it is a gain.
Yes, that's a fair point. > > We all know how shared libraries work right? Sorry for that. The answer was directed more towards the original poster.
