Programming

17366 readers

516 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

How important is the option for dynamic linking (vs static linking) in the modern day? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by cyclohexane@lemmy.ml to c/programming@programming.dev

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There was a time where this debate was bigger. It seems the world has shifted towards architectures and tooling that does not allow dynamic linking or makes it harder. This compromise makes it easier for the maintainers of the tools / languages, but does take away choice from the user / developer. But maybe that's not important? What are your thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thirdBreakfast@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I read an interesting post by Ben Hoyt this morning called The small web is a beautiful thing - it touches a lot on this idea. (warning, long read).

I also always feel a bit uncomfortable having any dependencies at all (left-pad never forget), but runtime ones? I really like to avoid.

I have Clipper complied executables written for clients 25 years ago I can still run in a DOS VM in an emergency. They used a couple of libraries written in C for fast indexing etc, but all statically linked.

But the Visual Basic/Access apps from 20 years ago with their dependencies on a large number of DLLs? Creating the environment would be an overwhelming challenge.

[–] LeberechtReinhold@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I kind of agree with your points, but I think there has to be a distinction of libs. Most deps should be static IMHO. But something like OpenSSL I can understand if you go with dynamic linking, especially if it's a security critical program.

But for "string parsing library #124" or random "gui lib #35".. Yeah, go with static.

[–] thirdBreakfast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Great point. Sometimes the benefit of an external dependency being changeable is a great feature.

[–] heeplr@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

string parsing library #124

this could also become a major security problem, tho.

[–] Blackthorn@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't not upvote someone who brings Clipper to the table :)

[–] thirdBreakfast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Us looking at developers still on dBase III ~inserts Judgmental Volturi meme~