Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: another argument against shared libraries
Message-ID: <1742@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Aug-83 15:07:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1742
Posted: Thu Aug 11 15:07:56 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Aug-83 04:57:37 EDT
References: <552@cvl.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 32

Everyone's got a point:  shared libraries, if changed, will cause
programs to break.  So (says the pro-shared) don't change them; do
them right the first time.

Doing it right the first time is certainly commendable, but it's
not always possible.

One of the best things about Unix is that it isn't fixed.  4.2
doesn't look that much like V6 anymore.  SysV seems to be even less
like V6.

As new hardware and software techniques are discovered, things will
keep changing; flexibility is required.

Something tells me that this is why any commercial system is never
quite as good as the "hacks" like Unix.  (And maybe Unix is going
to fall by the wayside, once everyone starts using it and it's
forced to become static.)

Just a thought.

				- Chris

PS  How 'bout *optional* shared libraries?  Seems to me this gets
around most everyone's arguments.  The old programs don't get them
since you aren't recompiling them; the new ones do unless you say
not to.  With retrofit libraries, that keeps the workload down.  (I
know, I'm not the first one to propose this.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP:	{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay