Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:40:34 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Morten Skaarup Jensen <msj AT oedan DOT dk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DLL in djgpp???
In-Reply-To: <34FE7516.54014021@oedan.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980305163548.12968C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Morten Skaarup Jensen wrote:

> If DLL's were implemented in GJGPP I cannot see that we should have to lose the
> static libraries, and therefore the only argument that I can come up with against
> DLL's is the work involved in implementing this facility (which I agree may well
> be enough for it not to be done), since one can always refrain from using the
> facility if one finds it disadvantagoeous.

This is true, but as you yourself note, a feature which is not sorely 
needed will probably never get done (unless somebody pays DJ or another 
guru to do it), since DJGPP is developed by volunteers.

At least my messages didn't mean to imply that it is forbidden or 
otherwise bad to implement such a feature.  I just wanted that people who 
are eager to have DLLs will be aware of their disadvantages before they 
plunge into the project of their lives.

> Apart from saving disk space and to a lesser extent memory, there is also a need
> for DLL's if one wants to include C-code in GUI's written in Visual Basic or
> Tcl/Tk .

This is not trivial, since somebody should find a way to interface VB 
with DJGPP, apart of the dynamic loading thing itself.