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?

@gatelike@feddit.de
link
fedilink
English
111Y

disk is cheap and it’s easier to test exact versions of dependencies. As a user I’d rather not have all my non OS stuff mixed up.

idunnololz
link
fedilink
-21Y

I misread disk as dick

Cyclohexane
creator
link
fedilink
111Y

From my understanding, unless a shared library is used only by one process at a time, static linking can increase memory usage by multiplying the memory footprint of that library’s code segment. So it is not only about disk space.

But I suppose for an increasing number of modern applications, data and heap is much larger than that (though I am not particularly a fan …)

The gain in RAM are not even guaranteed. See my other comment

Look at how bloated android applications are

Create a post

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 !webdev@programming.dev



  • 1 user online
  • 1 user / day
  • 1 user / week
  • 1 user / month
  • 1.11K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 1.21K Posts
  • 17.8K Comments
  • Modlog