From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4f34febc0901312327h2fe297bk490d3ee36faac5e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4f34febc0901312147m1ae91148oa384c00bb2430b1d@mail.gmail.com>
	<1d7d61e068228cc77ea1f53fc7eb4459@quanstro.net>
	<4f34febc0901312327h2fe297bk490d3ee36faac5e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun,  1 Feb 2009 12:12:05 +0100
Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40902010312o25a52d57pd6a465f572e8079e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Pegasus 2.6 is released
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 905a0510-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Can't you just execute new processes to "load" your
extensions?

I understand that's not a dll, but I'm really scared of
dlls after looking at what happen to linux. At least separate
binaries still work if you change libraries.

Just wondering.

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:27 AM, John Barham <jbarham@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the argument that if the normal extension
>> mechanism for scripting languages is x,
>> thereforenot having x is a weakness seems
>> a version of argumentum ad populum.
>>
>> doesn't dynamic loading seem at odds with the
>> tools approach?  the more complex the interface,
>> the less general the tool.
>
> Dynamic loading allows scripting languages to load arbitrary binary
> extensions at run-time.  Without dynamic loading in Plan 9 you need to
> recompile the Lua (or Python) interpreters to statically link in your
> binary extensions, so in this case dynamic loading makes the tool more
> general.  (FWIW, as has been pointed out on this list previously,
> Inferno applications can dynamically load modules at run-time.)
>
>  John
>
>