From:	sparhawk AT eunet DOT at (Gerhard Gruber)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Making Libraries
Date:	Thu, 02 Jul 1998 19:57:38 GMT
Organization:	Customer of EUnet Austria
Lines:	32
Message-ID:	<35a3e124.2129664@news.Austria.EU.net>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980702131758 DOT 17177B-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	e103.dynamic.vienna.at.eu.net
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Destination: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
From: Gruber Gerhard
Group: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:19:16 +0300 (IDT):

>> Shared librarys could be supported the way older compiler used overlays. I
>> remeber that Turbo C2.0 used overlays and this was AFAIK quite transparent to
>> the code.
>
>IMHO, overlays aren't worth the hassle.  They have all the disadvantages 
>of shared libraries (having a program depend on several files) without 
>the advantages (saving disk space).

That depends on what you are doing. We have some projects in my company where
multiple programs run with the same basic libraries. Fixing a bug in one of
these requires to ship out only this one library and fixing it in all programs
at once. If we used static linking then we had to rebuild all programs and
ship them out seperately. I don't know if DJGPP is used for commercial
projects other than games or smaller programs, but I think with bigger
projects where you create dependencies creating shared libraries would be
worth the effort. I also prefer to have an application in one single chunk but
sometimes it pays off. On the other hand, windows programmers seem to make a
contest to create as many DLLs as possible. Maybe customers expect to get a
lot of DLLs even if they wouldn't need them, so they are created.
--
Bye,
   Gerhard

email: sparhawk AT eunet DOT at
       g DOT gruber AT sis DOT co DOT at

Spelling corrections are appreciated.

- Raw text -