this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
64 points (97.1% liked)

Programming

17443 readers
139 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 !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] 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.

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

string parsing library #124

this could also become a major security problem, tho.

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

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