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?

  • gatelike@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    disk is cheap and it’s easier to test exact versions of dependencies. As a user I’d rather not have all my non OS stuff mixed up.

    • CyclohexaneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      From my understanding, unless a shared library is used only by one process at a time, static linking can increase memory usage by multiplying the memory footprint of that library’s code segment. So it is not only about disk space.

      But I suppose for an increasing number of modern applications, data and heap is much larger than that (though I am not particularly a fan …)