OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[Rainer Deyke]

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> just so you'd understand the scale I'm talking about - our largest
> executable is 1.5 Gigs in size.

How is 1.5 GB of dlls better than a 1.5 GB executable?  (And don't
forget, removing dead code across dll boundaries is a lot more difficult
than removing it within a single executable, so you're more likely to
have 3 GB of dlls.)

> you're wrong on both accounts, DLL type systems are not only the common
> case, they are the correct solution.
> the "DLL HELL" you're so afraid of is mostly solved by using
> jars/assemblies (smart dlls) that contain meta-data such as versions.
> this problem is also solved on Linux systems that use package managers,
> like Debian's APT.

You have a curious definition of "solved".  Package managers work
(sometimes, sort of) so long as you get all of your software from a
single source and you never need a newer versions of your software that
is not yet available in package form.  I've got programs that I've
almost given up on deploying at all because of assembly hell.  Plain old
DLLs weren't anywhere near as bad as that.

My favorite deployment system is the application bundle under OS X.
It's a directory that looks like a file.  Beneath the covers it has
frameworks and configuration files and multiple executables and all that
crap, but to the user, it looks like a single file.  You can copy it,
rename it, move it (on a single computer or between computers), even
delete it, and it just works.  Too bad the system doesn't work under any
other OS.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd at eldwood.com