>I like dynamic linking >I enjoy DLL hell >I enjoy

Static linking causes huge binaries

>>56357196

Only if you're using very bad libraries (and using them erroneously too) to begin with.

Also, lots of things cause huge binaries, but we do them anyway. We can afford lots of RAM and disk space these days.

>>56357196
It doesn't.
Because unlike dynamic linking the compiler can eliminate all unnecessary code.
Apart from some bistros hard core every nontrivial software requires its own version of a linked library anyway, so in the end dynamic linking causes more bloat, in particular in RAM where it matters.

.dll are a windows thing

>>56357261
if it doesn't run on some greybeard's 386 via 5¼-inch floppies it's unacceptable

>>56357312

Reminder that even the 386 had a MMU, but most modern phones and tablets still don't.

that's a stupid thing to care about

>>56357464
Found the Node.js code artisan!

File: 1468725638202.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

>>56357295

>what are .so's?

>>56357174
I fully agree OP

but dynamic linking is the sort of shit that's bad but not bad enough so that replacing it is a priority