Hacker News Reader

Static linking good for vendor, dynamic linking good for maintainers. Some distros already made exception from "no bundled libraries" rule for Rust. Now we need to add another exception just for Rust. Maybe, it's time for Rust to catch up and implement dynamic linking instead?

View on HN

Rust does support dynamic linking. But it suffers from the same issues C++ does: Code using generics will get inlined into your final binary, the ABI is unstable so you need to make sure you use the same compiler version, etc...

All those can technically be worked around, but it's more work for the maintainer. Dynamic linking is actually worse for the maintainer here, as it force them to have a stable ABI, which is a lot of work!

Rust's support for dynamic linking is entirely unrelated to how much of a pain LGPL makes static linking.

But it's entirely related to how much of a pain Rust makes dynamic linking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com