From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <029f25635d42b42992efa5e602366ae1@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:04:45 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3dd0441a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i think this is a case of robust agreement;
russ is just much better explaining himself than i.

- erik

On Tue Apr 18 21:53:00 CDT 2006, rsc@swtch.com wrote:
> > dynamic linking allows one to extend a program without inventing a metalanguage.
> > i believe there is a paper on how inferno's shell uses this to nice effect.
>
> shared libraries != dynamic loading of modules.
> both require a dynamic linking implementation
> but they are not at all the same.
>
> shared libraries are just a bad replacement
> for static libraries.  they're used implicitly without
> a program having to ask for anything, and there
> is never an appropriate situation in which
> to use them.
>
> dynamic loading of modules can be a very
> powerful method of extension.  i have been
> meaning for a long time to convert snoopy to
> make the protocol parsers dynamically loaded
> instead of having one huge binary.  the inferno
> shell is another good example.
>
> the boundary is a bit blurred on inferno,
> because the explicitly module loading there
> is most commonly used to load what on other
> systems would be libraries.  but the result,
> at least as implemented, has a very different
> feel from the shared library hell on unix
> and windows.
>
> russ
>