🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct6.214026.3576@networx.com> mikel@networx.com (Mike Lempriere) writes:
>Sorry, gotta flame on this one...
>
>The DLL itself is not inherently evil, however, the implementation is.
>It is absurd to have a program split in pieces in DIFFERENT PLACES!
>If I were to make a program and use a DLL, I would expect ALL the code
>to be in one place.  .DLL and .EXE in the relese directory tree.

We weren't talking about the philosophy of DLLs. The point is that for
*the C library* it would be *very nice* if IBM provided a standard C library
DLL as part of the OS/2 system. This would provide a lot of standardization,
and the biggest benefit the user would see is smaller executables. Programmers
would also be able to have a standard ANSI C library, which could easily be
updated in case of C library bugs, instead of replacing the whole program.

I used to see a lot of IBM posts from the C compiler people. They are strangely
silent on this issue....

It would be a small, but good step: smaller EXEs, less memory, greater 
standardization. Besides, many OSes supply a C library.
>
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
jpm: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca         
                            Happily using OS/2 2.0 because MS Windows isNT ___
                                                      Insert VapourFeature ^^^