On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:09:18 -0500, torhu <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 19.12.2011 16:08, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:30:44 -0500, torhu<no@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16.12.2011 22:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
In short, dlls will solve the problem, let's work on that instead of
shuffling around code.
How exactly do they solve the problem? An exe plus a DLL version of
the
library will usually be larger than just a statically linked exe.
The DLL is loaded into memory once. With static linking, it's loaded
every time you run an exe.
I thought we were talking about distribution sizes, not memory use. But
anyway, DLL's won't do a lot as long as people don't have a whole bunch
of D programs installed.
Right, in order for dlls to make a difference, you need to separate the
library install from the exe install, as is done most of the time.
If you are installing one D application on your box, what would be the
issue with the size anyway? The complaint is generally that the size is
much bigger than a hello world compiled for C/C++, which obviously doesn't
take into account that the C/C++ standard libraries are DLLs.
-Steve
