Dennis Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Windows way does not seem as powerful as the Unix way. I hate > the M$ operating systems, but I code for them almost every day. So my > next statement isn't so much a defense of Microsoft , but a rebuttal to > your assertion that "the windows shared library loader is not > sensible". The DLL mechanism made sense at the time it was created > (8088, 640K ram, windows 1.0 running in real-mode in 320x200x4 graphics > - not a lot of room for fancy features). You have to consider how and > why the DLL mechanism evolved on windows, and why Microsoft went through > so much effort to NOT break backwards compatibility.
How does introducing a new shared library format that supports automatic bidirectional linking (as in Unix) break backwards compatibility? Nobody says they have to stop supporting DLLs. Just provide something better in addition to DLLs... -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
