From: "Christopher Nelson" <paradox AT gye DOT satnet DOT net>
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Hello World and File size
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:00:54 -0600
Message-ID: <01beb759$043c8500$d8c2ddd0@thendren>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com



On 14 Jun 99, at 14:40, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I hope we can agree that this paradigm is not for DJGPP.  To this day, I
> have difficulties convincing people that recompiling most DJGPP packages
> is a very simple job, although we both know that it usually boils down to
> typing "make [Enter]" and sitting back for a while.


I still don't think that 'DLL' files are at the root of the problem.  Nor do
I think that this paradigm is not for DJGPP.  I agree that many programs do
not require or even need DLL support, as they use such tiny portions of the
static libraries.

However, they have many advantages.  What is needed is better management of
dynamic libraries themselves.  I think that it's great that DJGPP is so
simple to use for the most part.  I just recompiled the libc and was
surprised at how simple it was.  But there's no reason that DLL's have to
cause problems.  The same problems can and do happen when someone recompiles
a package meant for a different version of a STATIC library.

    -={C}=-