From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <866807507d00363f13327733a0af8fce@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] shared libraries
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:03:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: <45e1a96190cf999b84a1c3a728bc67e2@swtch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3adca35c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i wasn't serious [about adding shared libraries]

the trouble with shared libraries is that they seem at first quite
reasonable, and indeed at a fairly abstract level,
it seems irrational to be more opposed to them than any other form
of sharing, such as shared text, but the mechanics of linking and
sharing (especially on current processors), and of configuration
control, have so many hard facts that the simplicity of the original
is quite lost.   having experienced several variants, i find it now
saves time just to adopt the irrational position from the start.

i think i'd rather have (say) mondrian memory protection than
either shared libraries or the vm crud they keep adding to chips and systems.