Multithreaded I/O in the DMD compiler (DDJ article by Walter)

[Christopher Wright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:33:11PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> and apt-get replies with: "Couldn't find package virtualbox"
>>>
>>> Evidently, my system is completely hosed now.
>>
>> Aren't package managers swell?
>>
>> Waste of bloody time that would better be spent on solving the underlying
>> problem: too damn many combinations of options and dependencies. What 
>> works
>> for one person is unlikely to work for another.
>>
>> This is one reason why I rather like Phobos being statically linked 
>> like it
>> is. If you download a D binary, it is going to run; it is self contained.
>>
>> (I also really love dmc and dmd for being self-contained too.)
>>
>> If it was dynamically linked, someone would be tempted to package it up
>> separately and you'd get into all kinds of dependency hell. And for what?
>> 300k in the binary? Not worth it.
> 
> I've always felt the same way about dynamic libraries.  They're useful 
> for solving certain problems like plug-ins, but for simply saving app 
> memory the problems vastly outweigh the benefits.

On the other hand, I don't want every application to include its own 
libssl or libpam; I want to be able to get security updates to those 
without updating every individual program.

And then I think of all the times that there have been buffer overflow 
issues in jpg libraries and the like, and I want those to share security 
updates.

I wouldn't mind updating every application that depends on said 
libraries normally, but I'm usually on a very good internet connection 
(30Mbps). Right now, I'm on 2Mbps, and that would suck.