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?

  • Jamie@jamie.moe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The user never had much choice to begin with. If I write a program using version 1.2.3 of a library, then my application is going to need version 1.2.3 installed. But how the user gets 1.2.3 depends on their system, and in some cases, they might be entirely unable unless they grab a flatpak or appimage. I suppose it limits the ability to write shims over those libraries if you want to customize something at that level, but that’s a niche use-case that many people aren’t going to need.

    In a static linked application, you can largely just ship your application and it will just work. You don’t need to fuss about the user installing all the dependencies at the system level, and your application can be prone to less user problems as a result.

    • o11c@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only if the library is completely shitty and breaks between minor versions.

      If the library is that bad, it’s a strong sign you should avoid it entirely since it can’t be relied on to do its job.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to disappoint you, but when I installed HL1 build from 2007, I had a lot ot libraries versions that did not exist back in 2007, but it works just excellent.