Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Thu Feb 2 19:38:58 PST 2012
On Friday, February 03, 2012 04:27:37 Marco Leise wrote:
> Am 03.02.2012, 03:34 Uhr, schrieb H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at 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
More information about the Digitalmars-d