Talk:Static library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Splitting

Information about static libraries and specific implementations should be separated from library (computer science) and integrated into this article. --Jsmethers 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

yup. computer science and computer programming are not the same thing. there's no science to this concept whatsoever. 128.128.98.46 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I came here to find out why one might use static linking instead of dynamic linking. Perhaps a section on that, in either the main library article or in this static library article? --maru (talk) Contribs 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since "dependency hell" is not specific to Windows but any system which uses dynamic libraries without enforced versioning, why the specific reference? Let's get rid of it. 63.241.31.130 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a good point, but off the top of my head, Windows is the only major modern OS I can think of which doesn't use library versioning. It would be nice to give readers examples of the OSes affected by "dependency hell". Indeterminate (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The reference to "DLL hell" is certainly not NPOV.149.142.46.100 (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I reworded it. Let me know if it's still a problem. :) Indeterminate (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
try this. 128.128.98.46 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

"The source code must not have a main function". I know of at least one static library (on windows) that does provide a main function. I cannot see why having main() as part of a library instead of in the compiled source would be a problem. Are we sure this is accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.200.239 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it was incorrect, I have fixed it. -- intgr [talk] 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to "static linking"?

Currently the "static linking" article redirects here. However, I think that this article should be moved there instead. This might sound like nitpicking, but I'm just trying to get other peoples' input before doing something that others would disagree with.

Anyway: I think Static linking is a bigger concept than static libraries, because the word "library" artificially limits it from applying to executable binaries, e.g. linking together static libraries into a unified binary. E.g., the phrase "static linking" would embrace the term "statically linked executable", but "static library" doesn't. -- intgr [talk] 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)