>> I always wondered, what is the point of building a "monolithic" exe and not have some of (or all) the main modules as separate dll in a subfolder?
<<
You build a static binary when you do not want to relay on target system libraries. If you made some program in Linux 10 years ago and if you did not make it static then chances are it would not work on modern Linux system because newer version libraries would be incompatible.
Also loading time may be faster even though the binary would be larger. There are probably more benefits/trade-offs to this, but I think the first reason is usually the main reason.
>> Would possibly greatly help with end-user updates as possibly only SOME of the DLL change. Or indeed help with making almost what you ask... If asomeone has only some of the dll, he will be able to use MAME but with reduced functionality (eg. no "mechanical.dll" - although I am not saying I know what kind of dll "split" should be done, I am just giving an example). So how come and MAME is not like that? Cannot be done like that? Is there a benefit in the current form?
<<
There is a guy here that does something like that, Bryan Ischo.
http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/sho...;new=1336453472
I don't like dynamic, I like static, so I never looked into it to see what are the possible benefits, but is certainly not something I'd get myself involved with regarding this particular project.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Automated custom build installer/optimizer?
Reply
