Subject: CYGWIN.DLL
From: [email-masked] (Jeremy Blackman)

17 Jan 1997 16:49:46 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: [email-masked]
Original-To: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Ok, folks.  I admit to having been one of the folks who started this 
(lengthy) discussion, and there have been some good points made.

But we're starting to repeat ourselves. :)

Let's just summarize with:

* Some people disagree on whether or not static or dynamic libraries 
  are better.
* Static libraries _ARE_ easier to distribute (though larger) end
  executables, and are a little better at preventing library version skew.
* Dynamic libraries are more memory efficient, more space efficient, but 
  can (though are not neccessarily) be more annoying to distribute for a 
  single command-line style utility (like grep or something), if the DLL
  isn't pre-installed.  (I personally believe for applications which
  are already building their own directory tree, installing multiple files,
  etc...just use the DLL.  But not everyone agrees).
* People will have their own opinions.
* There are valid reasons why the cygwin.dll is as large as it is.
* cygwin is intended as a way to port UNIX programs to Windows.  The
  large number of functions in the DLL are required for this stated end.
* If you want a solution that doesn't rely on the DLL, check out the 
  Minimalist GNU-WIN32 kit.

That about sum it up?  If so, then let's get back to normal list 
discussion. :)

--Jeremy
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".