Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"BCS" <a...@pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:78ccfa2d4382d8cbd4ffb8875...@news.digitalmars.com...
Reply to teo,
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?
Yes, as a static .lib type library that is statically linked in as part of
the .exe.
Exactly, and it doesn't even have to be a compiled .lib, it could just be a
source-library. I do that all the time. I really don't see any reason to
think that modularity and code-reuse would require linking to be dynamic. At
least certainly not in the general case.
I agree that source-level modularity, and static linking are preferable
most of the time (especially given D's dependency on templates, which
don't work so well in compiled libraries).
But there are plenty of legitimate situations that mandate dynamic
linking, and I think the standard library needs a better solution than
what it currently has.
--benji
