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: 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