On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 5:43 AM Matheus Afonso Martins Moreira < math...@matheusmoreira.com> wrote:
> > I think every single use of the term "library" in this whole endeavor > > is misleading and misguided. > > I don't think so. A library is just a logical collection of code and data > that you can use to implement software. This is a mechanism meant > to load those libraries separately from executables. > Not in my parlance. Libraries are 'compiled collection of object module', can be static/dynamic, dynamic imply a runtime load. This is valid for interpreters with JIT compiler that can produce librairies. Bash do have libraries by means of loadable .so files, .so files can legitimatly called libraries. Those libraries do have their own PATH thing (i.e LD_LIBRARY_PATH) A 'script' is a bash source file with the +x bit set (executable), and as such don't have extension like 'foo'. A non executable bash file, better with a .sh extension, is a bash source. The source builtin just load 'file', albeit .sh file, not library.
