Program size, linking matter, and static this()

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:02:10 -0500, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 16.12.2011, 23:08 Uhr, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer  
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com>:
>
>> Note that on Linux today, the executable is not truly static -- OS libs  
>> are dynamically linked.
>
> That should hold true for any OS. Otherwise, how would the program  
> communicate with the kernel and drivers, i.e. render a button on the  
> screen? Some dynamically linked in functions must provide the interface  
> to that "administrative singleton" that manages system resources.

Not necessarily.  On Linux, system calls provide the "interface" between  
the code and the OS.  A system call is essentially an OS interrupt,  
similar to a network protocol.  You don't need dynamic linking to  
implement it.

Remember, Linux didn't even support dynamic libraries before kernel 1.2  
maybe?  Hm... must check wikipedia...

But my point is, if the intention is that you have a myriad of D based  
libraries or executables on your system, then druntime and phobos enter  
the same realm as glibc.

-Steve