From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: presotto@closedmind.org
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Getting started in Plan9 - help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20020121203455.2EAF8199E8@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:34:53 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3ff9e5e0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

To me, dynamic libraries are like clowns.  In both
cases, I was fightened by one at an impressionable
age and have loathed them ever since (Bozo tripped
on his microphone and fell on be when I was 3, Multics
got me at college).

It's a hard fear to overcome.  Putting something into
a dynamic library instead of into a server or the kernel
is oven more efficient.  However, by its very nature,
the interface is less constrained.  As a result, the
visibility of changes and the amount of ratcheting due
to new applications dragging in new, and often incompatible,
versions of the libraries is higher than changes in
the other 2 places.  It's too tempting to add a few
more parameters here and there and to make internal
details externally visible.

I can't really say that they're evil, only that I'ld
prefer not to use them.