From:	elf AT netcom DOT com (Marc Singer)
Message-Id:	<199604272156.OAA16743@netcom6.netcom.com>
Subject:	Re: ELF?
To:	idr AT cs DOT pdx DOT edu (Ian D Romanick)
Date:	Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP List Alias)
In-Reply-To:	<199604261934.MAA14918@deneb.cs.pdx.edu> from "Ian D Romanick" at Apr 26, 96 12:34:50 pm
MIME-Version:	1.0

> 
> > >If somaday djgpp will use ELF, will then it use shared libraries?
> > 
> >   Well, what's the use of shared libraries in a non-multitasking environment?
> 
> 	1. Less used disk space.
> 	2. Updating the library updates ALL programs that use it.
> 	3. Dynamic binding "objects."
> 
> In number 3 I mean, you could make (for example) a general compression
> library interface and just make a new library for each compression type
> (LZ, Huffman, etc) and let the program (or the user) decide which one to
> use based on which ones are available.  You could also do this with
> image loaders.  Just make a new DLL for each format.  This was done on
> the Amiga (and is the basis of OpenDOC) and is VERY powerful.  It allows
> your program to be updated long after you quit updating it. :)

I agree that the idea is very romantic.  While I have found them to be
useful in principle, teh reality for DOS is that we don't have an
adequate OS infrastructure to make them interesting.  On Linux, shared
LIBC is a BIG win because nearly every program uses it.  DOS, being
inherently a real-time OS, does not run more than one process at a
time, so we're left with only one benefit: dynamic linking.  Nice, but
it isn't stopping anyone I know from developing the software they want
to write.

Marc Singer
elf AT netcom DOT com

- Raw text -