On 05 May 2005 17:01:05 -0600, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Rutger" == Rutger Ovidius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > RH> But still largely useless. Who in their right mind is going to > RH> use an 83MB static library when a shared library is available. > > Rutger> Everyone on win32 builds libgcj static, and probably wants to keep it > Rutger> that way if they plan to distribute their apps. > > I thought the reason everybody on win32 built static was that there > was no choice. Is it really preferable?
The native libgcj library on Win32 is around 32MB and the JAR is around 8MB (as of 4.0 and judging from Mohan's distribution found in http://www.thisiscool.com/gcc_mingw.htm). If you are building a small and nifty application in Java, it would be unreasonable for you to expect your users to either download the whole Java runtime (either Sun's JRE or GCJ) separately or to have you bundle it with your application. It also doesn't help that the Java runtime is a moving target (in Sun's JRE and more so in GCJ) so you need to keep updating it for new apps or newer versions of existing apps. It keeps bloating at an alarming rate too. It's a similar case for MS .NET. Is it small wonder then that these have not penetrated much outside of enterprises? Even there, you find that many an enterprise software product implemented in Java comes with its own JRE (or even JDK). It's not uncommon to find *many* JREs on the machine of a single enterprise software developer or on a server. Static linking in GCJ and SWT offer a chance to get out of this vicious cycle, though it does lead to (a relatively small) duplication between various such applications. Many a time, it is the only way people are going to even bother trying out your application. One day, Java/GCJ would have stabilised and matured enough for this requirement to go away, but till then it's a crucial intermediate step for platforms like Win32. Ranjit. > I'm sympathetic to folks who want static builds for various reasons. > I wouldn't mind an option to allow libgcj to be built in some reduced > form, either; though it would be up to the folks using this mode to > maintain it. > > Tom > -- Ranjit Mathew Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com Bangalore, INDIA. Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/
