Programming

17392 readers

173 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

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It seems the world has shifted towards architectures and tooling that does not allow dynamic linking or makes it harder.

In what context? In Linux, dynamic links have always been a steady thing.

[–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We could argue semantics here (I don't really want to), but tools like Docker / Containers, Flatpack, Nix, etc. essentially use sort of a soft static link in that the software is compiled dynamically but the shared libraries are not actually shared at all beyond the boundary of the defining scope.

So it's semantically true that dynamic libraries are still used, the execution environments are becoming increasingly static, defeating much of the point of shared libraries.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but tools like Docker / Containers, Flatpack, Nix, etc. essentially use sort of a soft static link in that the software is compiled dynamically but the shared libraries are not actually shared at all beyond the boundary of the defining scope.

This garbage practice is imported from windows.

[–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

That may well be, but it doesn't really change anything, does it?

[–] ck_@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

In Linux, dynamic links have always been a steady thing.

Hot take: This is only still the case because the GNU libc cannot be statically linked easily