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

Programming

17487 readers
117 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
 

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?

(page 2) 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] oscar 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Static linking usually makes it easier by not having to manage dependencies (just build it once so it just werks). Its bloaty though due to the increased file size.

It might also not even be an option due to licensing issues, for example if a dependency uses a copyleft license like (L)GPL you would have to relicense your own software under (L)GPL as well, and release your source, when distributing statically linked binaries.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›