res wrote:
On 16.08.2005 22:24, Braden McDaniel wrote:
Well that's annoying. So why bother with msvcr71.dll at all? Why not
just build with /MT instead and pull in the static library? What does
using the DLL runtime buy you?
Disk and RAM space savings if you have multiple modules.
<shrug> Those are not so expensive that I'd make my life much more
difficult for the improvement. YMMV, of course.
One heap - you can free memory allocated in some other module.
That's the major selling point. Doing without this is giving up a lot;
nonetheless, I find myself considering strategies that would ameliorate
its absence.
And what exactly *is* annoying? Just put msvcr71.dll alongside your
application - done.
Distributing someone else's binary is annoying; establishing an
authoritative source for it when creating a distribution on an arbitrary
system would, I expect, be difficult. I suppose the solution to that is
to stick it in revision control. <retch>
But the real problem is for someone whose deliverable is a library
rather than an application. If I want that library to be sharable by
multiple applications, I can't very well have it depend on a library
that Microsoft does not make sharable by multiple applications.
Braden
_______________________________________________
vos-d mailing list
vos-d@interreality.org
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
