From: r124c4u2 AT aol DOT com (R124c4u2)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Hello World and File size
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news AT aol DOT com
Date: 9 Jun 1999 15:17:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: <8D53104ECD0CD211AF4000A0C9D60AE30141E446 AT probe-2 DOT acclaim-euro DOT net>
Message-ID: <19990609111727.16923.00002561@ng-fz1.aol.com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Shawn Hargreaves writes:

>All too true. But I'd just like to add that there is also an 
>efficiency argument in favour of static linking, odd though that 
>may seem. 
<snip remainder>
-----------------
Here's a quick check to demonstrate the wonderful advantages of DLL files.  I
have a rather vanilla Winodws 95 system.  I have added very, very little to
what the system came with.

Despite that, my C:\windows\system contains 473 DLL files with an aggregate
size of 47.9 MB.  And I am not claiming that is all the DLLs on the system, it
is just one hotbed of them I happen to know of.  

I have no idea how to prune that list of DLLs that have never been used, will
never be used, and shouldn't have been put there in the first place.  

DLLs might possibly, just barely possibly, have been a good idea at one time. 
They have turned into an absolute disaster!