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?

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlOP
    4·
    1 year ago

    The main issue I was targeting was how modern languages do not support dynamic linking, or at least do not support it well, hence sorta taking away the choice. The choice is still there in C from my understanding, but it is very difficult in Rust for example.

    • Johannes@programming.dev
      1·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, you can dynamically link in Rust, but it’s a pain because you have to use the C ABI since Rust’s ABI isn’t stable, and you have to miss out on exporting more fancy types

      • robinm@programming.dev
        2·
        1 year ago

        Just a remark. C++ has exactly the same issues. In practice both clang and gcc have good ABI stability, but not perfect and not between each other. But in any cases, templates (and global mutable static for most use cases) don’t works throught FFI.