Re: [9fans] shared libraries

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Charles Forsyth]

> 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.

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Charles Forsyth]

>> we will have a website and a tarball for kencc!

that's odd.  i thought i'd finally done that.
i wonder where it went.  i'll send out a search party!

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Bruce Ellis]

who coined the phrase "scared libraries"?

brucee

On 4/19/06, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> >> we will have a website and a tarball for kencc!
>
> that's odd.  i thought i'd finally done that.
> i wonder where it went.  i'll send out a search party!

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[uriel]

That is exactly what I proposed to Charles over a year ago, I'm still
waiting for access, I calculate it should take 5 min max to fix it.

uriel

[9fans] shared libraries

[Russ Cox]

i wasn't serious

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[uriel]

Sorry, I hit Post when I wanted to click Undo, this was in answer to
rsc's:

> there is nothing at all stopping you from setting up http://kcc.sf.net
> and populating it yourself.

Sorry, I had read kencc.sf.net rather than kcc.sf.net.  And yes, forking
kencc has crossed my mind, mostly so there could be a chance in hell
someone would ever use it.  I even started to look into it with one of
the BSD folks.

Sorry for deciding that maybe it was better idea to try to work with
Charles rather than duplicating even more work.

uriel

> That is exactly what I proposed to Charles over a year ago, I'm still
> waiting for access, I calculate it should take 5 min max to fix it.
>
> uriel

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Russ Cox]

forsyth:
> 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.

in fact i believe that a large part of the reason i can compress
the root image so well is that my super-big-lz pass finds
the shared code in all the binaries and gets rid of most of its
footprint.  (then i hand the result to bzip2 to finish the job.)
so i don't even think shared libraries would even help much in this
context.

uriel:
> P.S.: Unsurprisingly http://kencc.sf.net is nowhere to be seen in the SoC
> site either... *sigh* hey, who knows, maybe in a couple of years more
> we will have a website and a tarball for kencc!

there is nothing at all stopping you from setting up http://kcc.sf.net
and populating it yourself.  listen to dan cross.

russ

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Charles Forsyth]

> Sorry for deciding that maybe it was better idea to try to work with
> Charles rather than duplicating even more work.

the thing you keep forgetting is that this sort of thing takes my
spare time, and that's been limited for a time, even the time to wade
through sourceforge conventions.

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Russ Cox]

> That is exactly what I proposed to Charles over a year ago, I'm still
> waiting for access, I calculate it should take 5 min max to fix it.

no.  what i said was that nothing is stopping you from
making a new project (called, say kcc) and populating
its pages as you see fit.  nothing, that is, except that then
you'd have one less thing to complain about.

russ

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Ronald G Minnich]

Russ Cox wrote:
> i wasn't serious
>
>

I feel better now.

ron

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Rob Pike]

shared libraries are obviously a good idea until you've actually used them.
then whether it's obvious or not that they're a bad idea is mostly a matter
of how close you are to trying to get them to work.

-rob

Re: [9fans] shared libraries

[Brantley Coile]

I remember dmr posting a usenet message that outlined why shared
libraries were a bad idea, back when the DLL's were in the works for
OS/2.  It must be somewhat frustrating to work hard to figure
something out only to have everyone that follows walk right into the
problem again.

> shared libraries are obviously a good idea until you've actually used them.
> then whether it's obvious or not that they're a bad idea is mostly a matter
> of how close you are to trying to get them to work.
>
> -rob