Re: Building and using shared libraries using gccgo
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:36:44PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> At least to me my work on Haskell in Debian feels more than pretending,
> and from personal experience with the creators of the language, I have
> strong doubts that they are Idiots.
They are not, they are very smart, but they are academic people
with a very little idea of what it means to build a real software
distribution like Debian. I love type systems to, but whenever I talk
about static linking with in the academic context, they think it just
saves few KB of disk space.
I can't assert the same for go's designers, but for different reasons
they ended up incurring in the same design flaw. They want a binary to
be shipped on their production servers, and be sure that no matter how
crappy they are, it will work (no missing .so, no .so ABI problem).
Or at least, this is what I've understood.
Here we build a realistic system where a security update can be
made just by recompiling and pullig 1 package, not recompiling the whole
archive. Static linking imposes so.
To me it is just a problem of scale. You see the problems of static
linking only on a reasonably large scale. And Debian is huge...
Ciao
--
Enrico Tassi
Reply to: