Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go
by simoncion on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @03:54PM
(#8455372)
If "vendoring" precludes one from using a dependency installed on the system, then this practice is static linking all over again. Static linking has its place, but dynamic linking with sane versioning solves many problems.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go
by sagichmal on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @04:39PM
(#8455658)
In the era of containerized application platforms and immutable infrastructure, static linking is the path forward.
People like Go because you have a single executable to drop on a box, no worrying about what version of what libraries are installed. Though, the Go team realizes there is a need for dynamic linked libraries, so they at least have a proposal for it[0].
[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nr-TQHw_er6GOQRsF6T43GGh...
I've been following that proposal, and I'm a bit surprised that it isn't mentioned on the roadmap. Looks like dynamic linked libraries will come sometime in 2.x land?
One of the other talks made reference to it[0].
[0] http://dotgo.sourcegraph.com/post/99652344343/go-team-q-a-de...
Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go
by dangerlibrary on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @04:18PM
(#8455536)
I'm pretty sure all Go binaries are statically linked.
Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go
by munificent on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @08:12PM
(#8456575)
Sure, but that's orthogonal to what's being discussed here. You don't check your compiled binary into source control, but proponents of vendoring do check their (transitive) dependencies in.
But they said there are plans for dynamic linking