Shared Libraries [was Re: D 1.076 and 2.061 release]

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-01-06 12:27, Russel Winder wrote:

> I know that the Go folk are of the view that shared libraries are an
> abomination and all should be expunged from the universe; all Go
> executables are statically linked.
>
> Of course Linux, OS X, Solaris and AIX depend on shared libraries, but
> maybe Google think they can change the world?

I'm pretty sure that they're linking with the dynamic libraries when 
linking with systems libraries. As you say, they don't have much of a 
choice.

I guess they don't create new dynamic libraries with Go.

> If D is to compete with C, C++ and JVM-based languages then it has to
> have a position on shared libraries other than "we think it might be a
> good idea, but no-one has bothered to do anything about it to date".
> Either is is a good idea or it isn't. If it is a good idea then shared
> libraries should be in 2.062. If it isn't then a clear statement of
> "won't fix" and "D is a static compile only language, like Go" is
> needed.

I completely agree. We _need_ dynamic libraries. But the problem is that 
someone just have to do it and Walter doesn't seem to be in a rush to 
implement it.

> Of course then the issue is "How to link to shared libraries?". Go has
> some difficulties here but the put a shim in place to deal with it.

What would be the issue of linking with dynamic libraries? We can 
already link with C dynamic libraries without any problem.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg