[Spread-users] Static vs. Shared libraries...

[Jonathan Stanton]

It is true that some of the Spread people have a strong preference for
static libraries. That doesn't preclude shared library support and as you
noted the makefile for linux added it to test it out and more support is
coming.

The reason for preferring static libraries for our personal work (at
least sometimes) is long experience with needing software to work at all
costs. Even on different computers and in different environments then
what we might have expected. When we need to run demos on various
computers, or setup instances on five different platforms quickly, a
static binary that has no dependencies (except libc --- we arn't that
crazy :-) is the most portable thing out there. The speed benefits were a
more significant issue in 1995 when Spread was begun, but shouldn't be
too significant today.

This doesn't need to start a 'static vs. shared' discussion as I think I
know all of the tradeoffs already and we are planning on supporting both
which should make everyone happy...

Jonathan

On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 04:20:48PM -0700, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> I just heard through the grapevine, that spread folks prefer the use
> of static libraries vs. shared libraries.  Can someone
> confirm/deny/explain this?  I was under the impression that shared
> libraries were the way to go for pretty much everything these days.  I
> understand the (marginal?) speed benefits of statically compiling in
> libraries, but...  anyone have an authoritative opinion/explanation?
> -sc
> 
> -- 
> Sean Chittenden
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spread-users mailing list
> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan R. Stanton         jonathan at cs.jhu.edu
Dept. of Computer Science   
Johns Hopkins University    
-------------------------------------------------------