🚀 go-pugleaf

Maynard Handley (maynardh@apple.com) wrote:
: In article <415q72$7j6@blackice.winternet.com> Jeff Dege,
: jdege@winternet.com writes:
: >: 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.

: And for those of us who live in the real world, how exactly do you 
: propose this happens? When I install one copy of QT 2.0 on my system, all 
: my QT-aware apps beenfit. How do they all beneify on your system?

Just to jump in...

You simply fire up your linker and link the new QT 2 object code
with all your application object codes. Dynamically linked libra-
ries simply save memory (and time). An operating system does not
need dynamically linked libraries.

Of course, I would not use a computer without dynamically linked
libraries, VM, demand-paging, and so on. However, these features
only exist to save memory (and time). They are not required.

: [...]
:
: You seem unaware of the vast gap between "theory" and reality. 
: For heavens sake, in theory we can do all the computation we want on a 
: Turing machine. By your logic, anyone working to produce anything more 
: sophisticated is wasting their time.

He was talking theory. If you want to start talking reality then
start a new thread. Nothing in an advocacy group has anything to
do with reality. So stop ranting.

--
Why, he wondered, did so many people spend their lives not trying to
find answers to questions - not even thinking of questions, to begin
with? Was there anything more exciting in life than finding answers?