this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
62 points (94.3% liked)

Programming

17517 readers
336 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
snowe
Ategon
[email protected]
62
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/programming
62 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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

NEVER statically link to libc, and probably not to libstdc++ either.

This is really only true for glibc (because its design doesn't play nice with static linking) and whatever macOS/Windows have (no stable kernel interface, which Go famously found out the hard way.)

Granted, most of the time those are what you're using, but there's plenty of cases where statically linking to MUSL libc makes your life a lot easier (Apline containers, distributing cross-distro binaries.)