On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Markus Wichmann <nullplan_AT_gmx.net> wrote:
> Why would you do this? It's bloody idiotic, if you think about it. It
> would be like having all C programs ship their own libc. Have you seen
> how big perl is? Do you really want to have two perl installations just
> because two different programs use it?
Unless I’m mistaken, suckless in general advocates for
statically-linked standard C libraries of reasonable size.
http://suckless.org/rocks
> That, in my opinion was always the major benefit of Linux over Windows:
> On Linux you have system wide package managers. That means each software
> package can be as small as possible and only pull external dependencies.
> On Windows, no such thing exists. If a program needs a lib, it has to
> ship that lib. If you have 50 programs using that lib, on Linux you have
> that lib once, on Windows you have it 50 times. Which way is better?
It *is* one way to solve a real problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_Hell
> scripting languages are not fundamentally different!
Thank you!
Received on Fri May 16 2014 - 06:50:38 CEST