From:	hasdi AT umich DOT edu (Hasdi Rodzmann Hashim)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: shared libraries
Date:	13 Feb 1997 23:15:50 GMT
Organization:	University of Michigan
Lines:	31
Message-ID:	<5e07b6$1r6@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970210113614 DOT 2927A-100000 AT rwd>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	qix.rs.itd.umich.edu
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Nikita Proskourine (nproskou AT goucher DOT edu) wrote:
: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Bill Lanam wrote:

: > By the way dynamic linked libraries for DOS have been implemented before.

I'd like to know more about this.

: I suppose I _could_ implement DOS DLLs for DJGPP, but I would rather
: concentrate on more important tasks... and you're right, I probably don't
: need shared libs if I distribute my program in a single EXE.
[SNIP]

I think we are forgetting the real advantage of shared libraries. Shared
libraries can hide the implementation details of the operating system.
That way, if DOS maintainers decide screen printing should be done
directly instead of using INT 21h-09h, my application doesn't have to
change, only the libraries. This level of abstraction makes is possible
for an application to be more portable from one DOS implementation to
another; Heck, this would work even for different hardware implementation
(one day it will be i/o port 03E8h, tommorow 040Eh) and application NEVER
needs to change.

Sigh... if we have shared libraries a long time ago, we probably don't
need to run Quake under NT's or Mac's PC emulator crap (a simple DOS
emulator would suffice). :(

Later

Hasdi

- Raw text -