🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct5.135715.854@debet.nhh.no> si0_tb90020@debet.nhh.no writes:
>In article <717978212snx@sugs.tware.com>, landis@sugs.tware.com (Hale Landis) writes:
>> Hmmmm, wonder what you really mean... Are you looking for
>> a 'standard' C library (.lib file used with a linker) or
>> are you looking for a 'standard' C library as a .dll file?
>> 
>> I think the IBM C compiler has a 'standard' C library as
>> a .lib file.  What more could you want?
>> 
>> Why in the world would you want a .dll file for the C library?
>> Why would any one want a .dll file for any normal application
>
>Why? If the standard library was distributed as a dll, you would have
>several advantages:
>
>1) A compiler manufacturer would not have to worry about making one, he
>   could just use the IBM .dll
>
>2) A .dll is just loaded into memory once, not once for each application
>   using it. This means you would get a much smaller .exe. This means
>   more disk space is free, and you would use less memory. Thats why!
>


 3) You could make changes to the library (patches, enhancments) without
    having to relink applications.


--Gordon Miller