this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
60 points (96.9% liked)

Programming

17313 readers
302 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

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 [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
60
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 [email protected] to c/[email protected]
48 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
[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem is that GLIBC is the only serious attempt at a libc on Linux. The only competitor that is even trying is MUSL, and until early $CURRENTYEAR it still had worldbreaking standard-violating bugs marked WONTFIX. While I can no longer name similar catastrophes, that history gives me little confidence.

There are some lovely technical things in MUSL, but a GLIBC alternative it really is not.