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?
I read an interesting post by Ben Hoyt this morning called The small web is a beautiful thing - it touches a lot on this idea. (warning, long read).
I also always feel a bit uncomfortable having any dependencies at all (left-pad never forget), but runtime ones? I really like to avoid.
I have Clipper complied executables written for clients 25 years ago I can still run in a DOS VM in an emergency. They used a couple of libraries written in C for fast indexing etc, but all statically linked.
But the Visual Basic/Access apps from 20 years ago with their dependencies on a large number of DLLs? Creating the environment would be an overwhelming challenge.
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.
this could also become a major security problem, tho.
Great point. Sometimes the benefit of an external dependency being changeable is a great feature.
I can’t not upvote someone who brings Clipper to the table :)
Us looking at developers still on dBase III ~inserts Judgmental Volturi meme~