Programming

17366 readers

512 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

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

Yeah, you can dynamically link in Rust, but it’s a pain because you have to use the C ABI since Rust’s ABI isn’t stable, and you have to miss out on exporting more fancy types

[–] robinm@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Just a remark. C++ has exactly the same issues. In practice both clang and gcc have good ABI stability, but not perfect and not between each other. But in any cases, templates (and global mutable static for most use cases) don't works throught FFI.