• WhatMeWorry (8/8) Feb 02 2021 I'm studying the D article at:
• Adam D. Ruppe (11/14) Feb 02 2021 Yeah, I imagine what they meant was statically binding to the

WhatMeWorry <kheaser gmail.com> writes:

I'm studying the D article at:

https://dlang.org/articles/dll-linux.html#dso5
https://dlang.org/articles/dll-linux.html#dso6

Statically Linking D Program With libphobos2.a
Statically Linking D Program With libphobos2.so

Don't we want to Dynamically link with shared libphobos2.so?

Also why doesn't Windows have a libphobos.dll file. I only find a 
libphobos.lib

Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 at 22:39:40 UTC, WhatMeWorry wrote:
 Don't we want to Dynamically link with shared libphobos2.so?

Yeah, I imagine what they meant was statically binding to the 
dynamic link library as opposed to loading certain procedures at 
runtime one by one.

With the .a file, there's no need to have the phobos.so file at 
all to run the program. With the so statically bound (though 
still dynamically linked) it is needed to run the program.

With a full dynamic link and bind you might be able to run the 
program with or without it.

 Also why doesn't Windows have a libphobos.dll file. I only find 
 a libphobos.lib

druntime as a dll is so horribly broken it would be irresponsible 
to attempt it right now.