On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Markus Wichmann <nullp...@gmx.net> wrote: > Why would you do this? It's bloody idiotic, if you think about it. It > would be like having all C programs ship their own libc. Have you seen > how big perl is? Do you really want to have two perl installations just > because two different programs use it?
Unless I’m mistaken, suckless in general advocates for statically-linked standard C libraries of reasonable size. http://suckless.org/rocks > That, in my opinion was always the major benefit of Linux over Windows: > On Linux you have system wide package managers. That means each software > package can be as small as possible and only pull external dependencies. > On Windows, no such thing exists. If a program needs a lib, it has to > ship that lib. If you have 50 programs using that lib, on Linux you have > that lib once, on Windows you have it 50 times. Which way is better? It *is* one way to solve a real problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_Hell > scripting languages are not fundamentally different! Thank you!
