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?

  • LeberechtReinhold@lemmy.worldEnglish
    231·
    2 years ago

    I have yet to find a memory hungry program thats its caused by its dependencies instead of its data. And frankly the disk space of all libraries is minuscule compared to graphical assets.

    You know what’s going to really bother the issue? If the program doesn’t work because of a dependency. And this happens often across all OSes, searching for these are dime a dozen in forums. “Package managers should just fix all the issues”. Until they don’t, wrong versions get uploaded, issues compiling them, environment problems, etc etc.

    So to me, the idea of efficiency for dynamic linking doesn’t really cut it. A bloated program is more efficient that a program that doesn’t work.

    This is not to say that dynamic linking shouldn’t be used. For programs doing any kind of elevation or administration, it’s almost always better from a security perspective. But for general user programs? Static all the way.