And if you really want a single redistributable binary, any existing package can easily be bundled into one without decompiling it.
Traditional static linking is strictly worse.
Anyone disagree?
I think this is true, because with Nix and Guix, you actually have an end result with the positive characteristics of both kinds of linking.
His talk, based on his work on shrinkwrap² and nix-harden-needed², called for the creation of a new executable format for the Nix world. Seems apropos as a reminder that there are other possibilities!
(I think these kinds of solutions are definitely within reach for Valve from a technical perspective. Other tools are using them today.)
--
1a: https://youtu.be/HZKFe4mCkr4
1b: https://youtu.be/lzk4sldexX4
2: https://fzakaria.com/2022/03/15/shrinkwrap-taming-dynamic-sh...
3: https://fzakaria.com/2022/09/12/making-runpath-redundant-for...
But multiple derivations can share dependencies, which does save space and also makes it easy to identify dependencies of a given derivation, where statically linking would make that opaque.
Also, the story goes way beyond binaries, as dependencies often carry additional resources not bundled into the binary.