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?

    • colonial@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      Nice link - it’s good to see some hard data when most of the discussion around this is based on anecdotes and technical trivia.

    • robinm@programming.dev
      1·
      1 year ago

      Thank you so much. I read this when it was written, and then totally forgot where I read those information.

    • o11c@programming.dev
      1·
      1 year ago

      That’s misleading though, since it only cares about one side, and ignores e.g. the much faster development speed that dynamic linking can provide.

      • robinm@programming.dev
        3·
        1 year ago

        Nothing prevent you to use dynamic linking when developping and static linking with aggressive LTO for public release.

        • o11c@programming.dev
          1·
          1 year ago

          True, but successfully doing dynamically-linked old-disto-test-environment deployments gets rid of the real reason people use static linking.