I have given this some thought and I have come to the conclusion that having chicken.dll and dynamic chicken.exe doesn't matter too much. Now, that isn't the same as saying that I don't need to be able to create dll's that can be loaded by other applications.
One of my original uses of chicken was to build a dll that was loaded by a WTL (windows c++ gui framework) application. The basic idea worked fine though I never finished the project.
But I guess that I could always have linked to a static library. So in the end maybe I would agree with your buddy for this case. And having a single exe, large though it may be, eliminates a lot of potential problems.
But what about eggs and csi? If we don't have functioning dynamic libraries will we have to rebuild csi every time we want to load a new library in csi? Back when I actually had chicken working on windows the egg system worked pretty well using dlls.
Pat
On 2/16/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For what purposes are dynamic Chicken libraries really essential? Right
now I'm winning; my -DPIC problems were merely a typo in a define. But,
building dynamic libraries is definitely a source of complication and
maintenance difficulty. An associate who offered to help me out,
suggested that I just drop it, that it's pointless in the scheme of
things. I replied that I didn't know enough about how people use
Chicken to make that decision. So, I am asking you, how / why do you
use dynamic libraries? If you didn't have them available, how would
that impact you?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users