Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!ladcgw.ladc.bull.com!hermes.ladc.bull.com!fmayhar
From: fmayhar@hermes.ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared libraries
Message-ID: <1991May1.204355.7172@ladc.bull.com>
Date: 1 May 91 20:43:55 GMT
References: <1991Apr24.231048.2987@Think.COM> <148@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1991Apr29.213522.29521@ladc.bull.com> <1991Apr30.004343.27551@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: usenet@ladc.bull.com (Usenet News)
Reply-To: fmayhar@hermes.ladc.bull.com
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Los Angeles Development Center
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.ladc.bull.com

In article <1991Apr30.004343.27551@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
-> In article <1991Apr29.213522.29521@ladc.bull.com> I write:
-> >of this thread), shared libraries _are_ useful.  Their usefulness, in fact,
-> >outweighs the problems with them.  Why do you think shared libraries keep
-> >being reinvented?
->  Perhaps because it is easier to keep reinventing shared libraries than it is
-> to do it right.

Huh??  Care to explain that statement?  IMHO, the reason they keep being
reinvented (as opposed to simply being reimplemented), is that most folks that
implement them haven't ever done so before.  (There are, of course, exceptions
to this generalization.)  So they end up being reinvented in a relative vacuum,
without the benefit of the experience that many of us have.

Again, the reason, IMHO, that shared libraries appear in so many different
environments is that their benefits tend to outweigh the problems with them.  I
certainly would like to see a "right" implementation of shared libraries, but
first we need to decide just what "right" is, anyway.
-- 
Frank Mayhar  fmayhar@hermes.ladc.bull.com (..!{uunet,hacgate}!ladcgw!fmayhar)
              Bull HN Information Systems Inc.  Los Angeles Development Center
              5250 W. Century Blvd., LA, CA  90045    Phone:  (213) 216-6241