I really appreciate tooling that is written in Rust or Go that produce single binaries with minimal runtime dependencies.
Getting tooling written in for example Python to run reliably can be an exercise in frustration due to runtime environmental dependencies.
Why have an OS at all if every program is just going to package everything it needs?
It feels like we cheapened out. Rather than get good & figure out how to manage things well, rather than driver harder, we're bunting the problem. It sucks & it's lo-fi & a huge waste of resources.
the size of a program binary is a distant secondary concern to this main goal
static compilation more or less solves this primary requirement, at the cost of an increase to binary size that is statistically zero in the context of any modern computer, outside of maybe embedded (read: niche) use cases
there is no meaningful difference between a 1MB binary or a 10MB binary or a 100MB binary, disks are big and memory is cheap
the optimization of dynamic linking was based on costs of computation, and a security model of system administration, which are no longer valid
there's no reason to be offended by this, just update your models of reality and move on
It's popular to be cynical & conservative, to disbelieve. That has won the day. It doesn't do anything to convince me it was a good choice or actually helpful, that we were right to just give up.
i won't try to refute your personal experience, but i'll observe it's relevant in this discussion only to the extent that your individual context is representative of consumers of this kind of software in general
that static linking provides a more reliable end-user experience vs. dynamic linking is hopefully not controversial, the point about security updates is true and important but very infrequent compared to new installations
definitely i am not using buck or bazel or whatever to build binaries that go on those little sticks