On Friday, February 03, 2012 04:27:37 Marco Leise wrote: > Am 03.02.2012, 03:34 Uhr, schrieb H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>: > > Are there any *good* reasons why druntime and libphobos are not > > dynamically linked? In the long run, we need to support that, since > > otherwise D binaries will be unnecessarily large and the OS won't be > > able to optimize memory usage by sharing library images with multiple > > processes. > > > > > > T > > No fear, the people in charge know about all that, it was technical > reasons that held back the support. That said, there are people who prefer > static linking. May they speak for themselves...
Dynamic linking is evil. Static linking is _way_ better when you can do it. The problem is, of course, that you often need dynamic linking for a variety of reasons (saving memory being one of them). - Jonathan M Davis
