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?

  • o11c
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s misleading though, since it only cares about one side, and ignores e.g. the much faster development speed that dynamic linking can provide.

    • robinm
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing prevent you to use dynamic linking when developping and static linking with aggressive LTO for public release.

      • o11c
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        True, but successfully doing dynamically-linked old-disto-test-environment deployments gets rid of the real reason people use static linking.