“Shared libraries are not a good thing in general”

Re:“Shared libraries are not a good thing in general” by ReaLNero on Sunday May 02, 2021 @10:19AM (#27015535)

I like the anecdote, but I don't see what argument it offers. Usually, the core maintainers are the one with the strongest context on the project, and thus would have the best knowledge of optimization locations.

Telling maintainers to dynamically link just in case someone wants to change the libraries is like having replaceable CPUs on motherboards. Useful for 0.1%, but requires a lot of working around.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Shared libraries are not a good thing in general” by alex_smart on Sunday May 02, 2021 @11:36AM (#27016148)

I was just giving a real-world example where dynamic patching via LD_PRELOAD was quite useful, not offering it as an argument for maintainers to use dynamically linked libraries.

Of course, there are many independent arguments for using dynamically linked libraries, which is why most linux distributions use them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Shared libraries are not a good thing in general” by witty_username on Sunday May 02, 2021 @02:18PM (#27017485)

> replaceable CPUs on motherboards

What do you mean by this? You can generally replace the CPU on a desktop or laptop motherboard.

[ Parent | on HN ]