BCS Wrote:
> Reply to teo,
>
> > Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:12 AM, teo<teo.ubu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> One major problem is the D's inability to create dynamic libraries.
> >>> D is a great language, but without that ability it can only be used
> >>> for small programs, tools, etc. and never in production.
> >>>
> >> For one, I question your logic that without dynamic libraries, D can
> >> never be more than a hobby language.
> >>
> > Would you develop an application (excluding tools) as a huge
> > monolithic executable?
> >
>
> Unless I has some some compelling reasons not to, yes, I would prefer to.
> Aside from reasons like needing to be able to modularly update the app or
> huge (like GBs) amounts of executable code or some kind of plug-ins via DLLs
> approach, (all of those are exceptions, not the rule) I don't see any
> compelling
> reason to not statically link all of /my/ code together. It has the distinct
> advantage that things just work without worrying about finding DLLs and
> checking
> there versions. (OTOH shipping DLLs to be used by other people is a different
> story.)
>
Well, to some extent this will do the job, but at some point you would need to
extract some stuff and put it in libraries, so that it can be reused by other
applications. Think about an application which consists of several executables
which work together and should share common stuff. Wouldn't you extract it into
a library?
