View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 04, 2012
Re: libphobos.so libdruntime.so
On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 07:11:25PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-02-03 20:55, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:28:04PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
[...]
> >>I rather have a slightly bigger executable than having my system
> >>cluttered with hundreds of phobos versions I don't need.
> >
> >Um, that's what you use a package manager for...
> 
> Even if you would use a package manager to install the
> applications/libraries it would still be cluttered with different
> versions of Phobos.
[...]

Not if your package manager is clueful enough to be able to detect (and
optionally remove) libraries that nothing depends on, automatically.


T

-- 
Freedom of speech: the whole world has no right *not* to hear my spouting off!
February 05, 2012
Re: libphobos.so libdruntime.so
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:38:58 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com>  
wrote:

> On Friday, February 03, 2012 04:27:37 Marco Leise wrote:
>> Am 03.02.2012, 03:34 Uhr, schrieb H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx>:
>> > Are there any *good* reasons why druntime and libphobos are not
>> > dynamically linked? In the long run, we need to support that, since
>> > otherwise D binaries will be unnecessarily large and the OS won't be
>> > able to optimize memory usage by sharing library images with multiple
>> > processes.
>> >
>> >
>> > T
>>
>> No fear, the people in charge know about all that, it was technical
>> reasons that held back the support. That said, there are people who  
>> prefer
>> static linking. May they speak for themselves...
>
> Dynamic linking is evil. Static linking is _way_ better when you can do  
> it.
> The problem is, of course, that you often need dynamic linking for a  
> variety
> of reasons (saving memory being one of them).

Dynamic linking is not evil, poorly managed packaging of dynamic libs is  
evil.

Static linking has its advantages too, but as far as phobos and druntime  
are concerned, dynamic linking would be way way better.

-Steve
February 05, 2012
Re: libphobos.so libdruntime.so
On 2012-02-05 00:42, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 07:11:25PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-02-03 20:55, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:28:04PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
> [...]
>>>> I rather have a slightly bigger executable than having my system
>>>> cluttered with hundreds of phobos versions I don't need.
>>>
>>> Um, that's what you use a package manager for...
>>
>> Even if you would use a package manager to install the
>> applications/libraries it would still be cluttered with different
>> versions of Phobos.
> [...]
>
> Not if your package manager is clueful enough to be able to detect (and
> optionally remove) libraries that nothing depends on, automatically.

Yeah, but as long as something depends on the libraries you cannot 
remove them.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
February 06, 2012
Re: libphobos.so libdruntime.so
On Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 03:58:03 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
>Static linking has its advantages too, but as far as phobos and 
>druntime  are concerned, dynamic linking would be way way better.

Bollocks. In the general case (which is silly to talk about, I'll 
admit) I'd take static linking every time. Sure, it increases the 
size of the executable, but if I'm distributing my app, I'm 
almost certainly distributing libphobos.so with it, so that's 
moot.

As has been said, Phobos/druntime changes often enough that 
relying on it being present on the users system is ridiculous.

This isn't to say being able to dynamically link Phobos and 
druntime is undesirable, it isn't. But even if it were an option, 
I would still statically link them to my apps.
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home