From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <871yg0ln64.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <20020204103944.36F5419A27@mail.cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Virtual memory & paging Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:53:58 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4b9ba92e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 geoff@collyer.net writes: > Given that degree of sharing, the low cost of RAM, and the increase in > OS complexity, slowness and insecurity in the implementations of > dynamic libraries that I've seen, I don't see a need for dynamic > libraries. Well, this sounds a little like "it's inherently buggy", which is false. If you don't trust yourself to write a shared library implementation correctly, then say so, but I think the Plan 9 authors are certainly capable of writing one that works right. There may be other reason to not want them--as I'm sure the Plan 9 authors have chosen. However, "we can't write an implementation without bugs" is not a good reason.