On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:38:58 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
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).
Dynamic linking is not evil, poorly managed packaging of dynamic libs is
evil.
Static linking has its advantages too, but as far as phobos and druntime
are concerned, dynamic linking would be way way better.
-Steve
