Dynamic D Library

[BCS]

Reply to teo,

> BCS Wrote:
> 
>> Unless I has some some compelling reasons not to, yes, I would prefer
>> to. Aside from reasons like needing to be able to modularly update
>> the app or huge (like GBs) amounts of executable code or some kind of
>> plug-ins via DLLs approach, (all of those are exceptions, not the
>> rule) I don't see any compelling reason to not statically link all of
>> /my/ code together. It has the distinct advantage that things just
>> work without worrying about finding DLLs and checking there versions.
>> (OTOH shipping DLLs to be used by other people is a different story.)
>> 
> Well, to some extent this will do the job, but at some point you would
> need to extract some stuff and put it in libraries, so that it can be
> reused by other applications. Think about an application which
> consists of several executables which work together and should share
> common stuff. Wouldn't you extract it into a library?
> 

Yes, as a static .lib type library that is statically linked in as part of 
the .exe. If the size of the code duplication becomes an issue, I'll be to 
busy worrying about other things (like not being able to fit my code and 
data in a 32bit address space).