Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Nov 2011 21:26 UTC, submitted by edwin
Permalink for comment 496967
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-11
Haha, nice
I agree with those that say the technical problems introduced with shared libraries and their versioning have been solved by now. And I agree that the modularity is nice. Still, the complexity introduced by this is far from trivial.
What if the same benefits could have been achieved without adding dynamic linking? Imagine a package manager that downloads a program along with any libraries it requires, in static form, then runs the linker to produce a runnable binary. When installing an update of the static library, it will run the linker again for all programs depending on the library. This process is similar to what dynamic linking does every time you run the program. Wouldn't this have worked too, and isn't this the natural solution if the challenge was defined as "how to avoid manually rebuilding every program when updating a library"?