Re: [wmii] patches for shared object libixp and Sun compiler

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:27:44 +0100 Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> The point Uriel tries to make in my eyes (which is similiar to
> my point) - without dynamic linking developers are forced to
> consider simplicity and memory consumption, that leads to a
> saner environment (which is simplier and uses less memory). With
> dynamic linking they simply don't consider this, because there's
> memory code segment sharing due the benefit of dynamic linking,
> hence they can bloat the software much more and the more insane
> software gets... Think of static linking as a complexity killer.
That's not what he said, though. He was generally condamning
dynamic linking without any reason.
I agree on your arguments, but it is up to the programmers
whether they are willing to code in a good efficient way or not.
One can do that and use dynamic linking at the same time.
Dynamic linking has its benefits and thus a reason to exist.

The same applies to your further arguments. There are pros and
cons and it depends on the actual case which one is better to
use.

> That's true and I can understand that. You never argued that
> dynamic linking is better.
>
> > But I just can't stand it if somebody then comes in and
> > destructively judges everything using dynamic linking as
> > crap. This is not helpful at all and just clogging my
> > mailbox - that's why I was writing personal mails. But
> > if Uriel has to drag this into public I can't help it.
>
> You know the argumentation scheme of Uriel, so don't get pissed
> off by him ;)
I know...and originally I didn't want to argue about dynamic
linking. But as I don't like to get such useless comments at
all, I thought I'd let him know personally...
...and there it started... ;)

Regards,
Stefan

-- 
"Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail