Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/04/27/18:09:36
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 -