Shared libraries

[Frank Mayhar]

In article <1991Apr30.004343.27551 at mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert at mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
-> In article <1991Apr29.213522.29521 at 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 at 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