From: s2172184 AT cse DOT unsw DOT edu DOT au ("Ben Constable") Subject: Re: CYGWIN.DLL 17 Jan 1997 23:50:30 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <970118054327.27257.cygnus.gnu-win32@cse.unsw.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Original-To: "Jeremy Blackman" , X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com > * 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. :) I agree with all of this. But what of the idea of splitting up the DLL into smaller DLL files? Ben Constable s2172184 AT cse DOT unsw DOT edu DOT au - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".