🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 Aug 1995 16:57:39 GMT, Maynard Handley (maynardh@apple.com) wrote:
: In article <413jq2$oc@blackice.winternet.com> Jeff Dege,
: jdege@winternet.com writes:
: >
: >   All dynamic linking does is save you disk space.  I hardly consider it
: >an essential proporty of an OS.
: 
: WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. 
: Dynamic linking gives you a level of indirection that allows you very 
: easily to update algorithms and such in the OS/Toolbox while not having 
: to touch existing apps. 

    All of which can be done with static libraries and a linker.  It's no
fundamental change.  At best, it provides additional options to software
providers who distribute in binary form only, in that they can ship an
upgraded DLL, instead of shipping a new bound executable.  It's not
a fundamental change in the way the computer operates.

: Look, for example, at QuickTime. QT 2.0 comes out with new improved 
: blitters and all QT apps run fast---doen by dynamic linking through 
: Component Manager. 

   And if the QT libraries had been statically linked, you'd have had
to relink the apps to gain the advantages, or if a provider did't provide
a mechanism for relinking its app, you'd have the provider ship you
a new executable.

: Please get your facts right in future.

    The FACT is that an app can use a routine in a library either by
having that library linked statically or dynamically, and in terms of
the fundamental behavior of the system there is very little difference.

-- 
the Windows API has done more to retard skill development
than anything since COBOL maintenance.
                           --Larry O'Brien