Re-thinking D's modules

Paulo Pinto pjmlp at progtools.org
Wed Jul 18 02:54:16 PDT 2012


On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 09:25:03 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> […]
> Isn't the real question why is the same dynamic library linking 
> problem
> happening again. Has nothing been learned from UNIX shared 
> objects and
> Windows DLLs?
>
> Go solves the problem by refusing all notion of dynamic linking 
> and
> insisting on static linking of all applications.
>

As I already mentioned a few times in Gonuts, static linking makes
it hard to implement certain types of applications.

Plus, the Go folks seem to live in open source land, where the 
code
for all 3rd party libraries is available, and no one has any 
issues
with licenses that forbade static linking.

Their attitude to keep versioning out of "go get" is a reflection 
of this.

>> For those that don't know .NET, due to the DLL Hell 
>> experience, Microsoft
>> has built version support in the CLR from day 1.
>
> But, as ever, Microsoft see things like this as a way to try 
> and get
> everyone to use Windows via proprietary lock-in rather than by 
> trying to
> educate people about possible solutions.

To be fair to Microsoft, I am yet to see a commercial vendor that
does not do that.

The ones that do, usually have some consulting agenda, 
certifications,
whatever, to sell along their "free and standard" solution.


--
Paulo


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list