Re: 5.1 beta problem linking luac against .so

[Robert Raschke <rrlua@...>]

glenn@zewt.org wrote:
> 150k is a lot when it's repeated over a dozen or more binaries--for example,
> a package containing a suite of small tools.  ("It's just 150k" is the
> mindset that leads to the bloat of a lot of applications today--150k here
> and 150k there adds up quickly.)
> 
> More importantly, there's the other major benefit of shared libraries:
> updating them system-wide doesn't require updating every binary that
> uses it.  This could be significant, for example, if a security-related
> bug was fixed.
> 
> I statically link for other reasons (to avoid adding a runtime dependency),
> but "there is no downside" is overstating the case.  (Many people would
> call encouraging static linking to be a "deadly sin".  Caught between hells?)

I can understand the lots of 150K adds up to a lot, but ...  if I'm
running in an environment where disk and memory space is tight, I'll
be doing special things from the outset, if I'm running on any kind of
"normal" OS with disk space and memory in abundance (>20GB and >256MB,
respectively) I don't have a problem (apart from an ethical one).
Even if I have 100 Lua utilities with Lua statically linked, that's
only 15MB.  That's still less than a lot of single applications these
days.  Have you looked at the size of libraries (.so, .dll, .jar,
.lib, .a, whatever) recently?

And while shared objects seem to be great, i.e., "updating them
system-wide doesn't require updating every binary that uses it", in my
experience this leads to "some binaries mysteriously fail".

I'm probably preaching to the converted, so please excuse the fervour.

Robby