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.
As a long time Linux desktop user, I appreciate any efforts to improve compatibility between distros. Since Linux isn't actually an operating system, successfully running software built for Ubuntu on a Fedora box, for example, is entirely based on luck.
Where-as with the conventional dynamic library world one would just update openssl or whomever & keep going. Or if someone wanted to shim in an alternate but compatible library, one could. I personally never saw the binary compatibility issue as very big, and generally felt like there was a while where folks were getting good at packaging apps for each OS, making extra repos, that we've lost. So it seems predominantly to me like downsides, that we sell ourselves on, based off of outsized/overrepresented fear & negativity.
the computational model of a fleet of long-lived servers, which receive host/OS updates at one cadence, and serve applications that are deployed at a different cadence, is at this point a niche use case, basically anachronistic, and going away
applications are the things that matter, they provide the value, the OS and even shared libraries are really optimizations, details, that don't really make sense any more
the unit of maintenance is not a host, or a specific library, it's an application
vulnerabilities affect applications, if there is a vulnerability in some library that's used by a bunch of my applications then it's expected that i will need to re-deploy updated versions of those applications, this is not difficult, i am re-deploying updated versions of my applications all the time, because that is my deployment model
Beyond app delivery there's dozens of different utils folks rely on in their day to day. The new statically compiled world requiring each of these to be well maintained & promptly updated feels like an obvious regression.
Linux distros are thankfully moving towards embracing static linking, rather than putting their heads in the sand and pretending that dynamic linking isn't on its last legs.
Dynamic linking on *nix has nothing to do with 70s era programming languages.
Did you consider the possibility that the incompatibility between monomorphization (possibly the dumbest term in all of programming) and dynamic linking should perhaps saying something about monomorphization, instead?
Given that dynamic linking as a concept came out of the C world, it has everything to do with them.
> Did you consider the possibility that the incompatibility between monomorphization (possibly the dumbest term in all of programming) and dynamic linking should perhaps saying something about monomorphization, instead?
Yes, I considered that possibility.
What elements of dynamic linking do you see as being connected to "70s era programming languages"?
> Yes, I considered that possibility.
Then I would urge you to reconsider.
there is no practical downside to a program including all of its dependencies, when evaluated against the alternative of those dependencies being determined at runtime and based on arbitrary state of the host system
monomorphization is good, not bad
the contents of /usr/lib/whatever should not impact the success or failure of executing a given program
There's also the problem that dynamic loading relies on almost all the same mechanisms as dynamic linking, so you can't get rid of those mechanisms just because your main build process used static linking.
smaller executable sizes, shared code in memory, synchronized security updates, are all basically value-zero, in any modern infrastructure
there is no "growing chorus" of developers or users saying otherwise, it is in fact precisely the opposite, statically linked binaries are going extremely well, they are very clearly the future
> smaller executable sizes, shared code in memory, synchronized security updates, are all basically value-zero, in any modern infrastructure
This highlights the fact that you're extremely focused on one particular model of development, one where a single person or group deploys software that they are responsible for running and maintaining - often software that they've written themselves.
This is, obviously, an extremely appropriate paradigm for the enterprise. Static linking makes a lot of sense here. Python's virtual environments are basically the approved workaround for the fact that Python was built for systems that are not statically linked, and I cherish it for exactly that reason. Use Go on your servers - I do myself! But that doesn't mean it's appropriate everywhere.
Sometimes developers in this mindset forget there's a whole other world out there, a world of personal computers, that each have hundreds or thousands of applications installed. Applications on these systems are not deployed, they are installed. The mechanism by which this happens (on Linux) is via distributions and maintainers, and dynamic linking needs to be understood as designed for that ecosystem. Linux operating systems are built around making things simple, reliable, and secure for collections of software that are built and distributed by maintainers.
I'm firmly on the side of the fence that says that dynamic linking is the correct way to do that. All the benefits you mention are just a free bonus, of course, but I care about them as well. Smaller executable sizes? Huge win on my 256 GB SSD. Synchronized security updates? Of course I care about those as an end user!
You raise the world of personal computers. And I think dynamic linking is absolutely a choice that has huge advantages for these folks.
There's other realms too. Embedded software needs smaller systems, so the dynamic library savings can be huge there. Hyper-scaler systems, where thousands of workloads can be running concurrently, can potentially scale to much much much higher usages with dynamic linking.
It's a little far afield, but with systems like webasssembly we're really looking less at a couple orgs within a company each shipping a monolith or two, and we're potentially looking way more at having lots of very small functions with a couple helper libraries interacting. This isn't exactly a classic dynamic library, but especially with the very safe sandboxing built in, the ideal model is far closer to something like dynamic linking where each library can be shared than it is shared.