On 27 Jan 2011, at 15:18, Norman Dunbar wrote: >>> >>> * Libraries that applications can link to at run time, as opposed to >>> static linking at compile time. >> How would that work? If I write a program I like to know in advance what it >> will contain > True, but lets say you have a graphics application that needs to display > an SVG graphic. Would you write an SVG decoder routine? No, you'd use > the one built in to the OS as a library (dll on windows, so (shared > object) file in Linux for example). >
Of course. but why at runtime? > The distributed application would not need to distribute the library as > it is there on all computers running the OS in question. > > Your application is less resource intensive and downloads faster - ok, I > realise the Windows apps are still available on two DVDs for an install! > > There's nothing to stop you statically linking the library to your > application, of course, that way you know that the version you wrote it > to work with is always available regardless of what version of the OS or > library in question is built in to the customer's computer. It seems dangerous to me to rely on a routine which might have changed since the last time you looked at it. How can you know that the next time your program runs it won't produce different or faulty results because the DLL now contains something different? George _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
