64
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
64 points (97.1% liked)
Programming
17314 readers
321 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The user never had much choice to begin with. If I write a program using version 1.2.3 of a library, then my application is going to need version 1.2.3 installed. But how the user gets 1.2.3 depends on their system, and in some cases, they might be entirely unable unless they grab a flatpak or appimage. I suppose it limits the ability to write shims over those libraries if you want to customize something at that level, but that's a niche use-case that many people aren't going to need.
In a static linked application, you can largely just ship your application and it will just work. You don't need to fuss about the user installing all the dependencies at the system level, and your application can be prone to less user problems as a result.
Only if the library is completely shitty and breaks between minor versions.
If the library is that bad, it's a strong sign you should avoid it entirely since it can't be relied on to do its job.
Not to disappoint you, but when I installed HL1 build from 2007, I had a lot ot libraries versions that did not exist back in 2007, but it works just excellent.