Also, sibling comments argue that kernel samepage merging can help avoid the bloat of static linking. But here what you argue will make every copy of the shared libraries oh-so-slightly-different and therefore prevent KSM from working at all. Really, no one is thinking this through very well. Even distributions that do static linking in all but name (such as NixOS) do still technically use dynamic linking for the disk space and memory savings.
Abstractions are a thing in computer science. Abstracting at the shared library layer makes as much sense as abstracting in the RPC layer (which your software is most likely going to be obligated to do) or abstracting at the ISA level (which your software IS obligated to do). Your software has as many chances to break from a library change as it does from a display driver change or from a screen resolution change or from a processor upgrade. Why the first would bloat the "testing matrix" but not the later is over me, and already shows a bias against dynamic linking: you assume library developers are incapable of keeping an ABI but that the CPU designers are. (Anecdotally, as a CPU designer, I would rather trust the library developers..)
Many modern software development paradigms are simply not compatible with ABIs or dynamic binding. Dynamic binding also likely means you're leaving a bunch of performance on the table, since inlining across libraries isn't an option.
You'd be surprised, specially when I'm thinking 30 year old software. Again, usually I can patch around it thanks to dynamic linking...
> Many modern software development paradigms are simply not compatible with ABIs or dynamic binding
This is nonsense.
> Dynamic binding also likely means you're leaving a bunch of performance on the table, since inlining across libraries isn't an option.
Again, why set the goalpost here and not say ISA level or any other abstraction layer? I could literally make the same argument to any of these levels (e.g. "you are leaving a bunch of performance on the table" by not specializing your ISA to your software). How much are you really leaving? And how much would you pay if you remove the abstraction? What are the actual pros/cons?
The answer to each of these questions is specific to the circumstances. You have to decide based on general principles (what do you value?), the specific facts, and ultimately judgment.
I think in some cases (e.g kernel or libc) using dynamic binding generally makes sense, but I happen to think forcing shared library use has many more costs than benefits.
You're absolutely right that everyone should ask these questions, though. I work at Oxide where we did ask these questions, and decided that to provide a high-quality cloud-like experience we need much tighter coupling between our components than is generally available to the public. So. for example, we don't use a BIOS or UEFI—we have our own firmware that is geared towards loading exactly the OS we ship.
> This is nonsense.
Monomorphization like in C++ or Rust doesn't work with dynamic binding. C macros and header-only libraries don't work with dynamic binding either.
The fact of the matter is outside of GPU drivers and poorly designed GUI applications, that's an extreme statistical outlier.
For the record, the 1.1GB executable I'm thinking about is a popular _terminal-only_ simulation package. No GUI.
I did a little math using a common GTK application as an example: nautilus. Using `ldd` and several shell utilities, if you were to statically link it it clocks in at around 80MB in binary size, but that would be worst case without LTO.
FWIW I think graphics stacks are one of the few places where dynamic linking is still highly relevant.
Just watch how these become used in every other app over the next few years.
And yes, the fact that you won't use those apps does not make it easier for the rest of us.
If you've got 10-15+ consumers of a shared library or want to do plugins/hot-code reloading and have a solid versioning story by all means vend a DSO. If you don't however I would strongly recommend trying to keep all dependencies static and letting LTO/LTCG do its thing.