Re: why do we even want shared libraries anyway>

[Tyler MacDonald]

Ed Hartnett <address@hidden> wrote:
> Given the cost of disk space, why put up with all the complexity of
> building shared libraries? Why not just keep using static
> libraries. If the disk runs out of space, spend $200 on a new disk
> drive.

        That's true, but there's also the cost of RAM: On many OSes, when
multiple processes are using the same shared library, it only needs to get
loaded once. And then there's also the fact that when a shared library gets
upgraded, you don't have to recompile all the other executables that use it,
they automatically start using the new version of the library. (Depending on
your situation, that could be a good or bad thing...)

        Cheers,
                Tyler