There was a time where this debate was bigger. It seems the world has shifted towards architectures and tooling that does not allow dynamic linking or makes it harder. This compromise makes it easier for the maintainers of the tools / languages, but does take away choice from the user / developer. But maybe that’s not important? What are your thoughts?

  • colonial@lemmy.world
    21·
    10 months ago

    NEVER statically link to libc, and probably not to libstdc++ either.

    This is really only true for glibc (because its design doesn’t play nice with static linking) and whatever macOS/Windows have (no stable kernel interface, which Go famously found out the hard way.)

    Granted, most of the time those are what you’re using, but there’s plenty of cases where statically linking to MUSL libc makes your life a lot easier (Apline containers, distributing cross-distro binaries.)