LesPaul75
Joined 29 October 2006
Latest comment: 12 years ago by LesPaul75 in topic Disk space usage WinSxS folder
This is a discussion about DLLs moved from Talk:Side-by-side assembly:
Disk space usage WinSxS folder edit
The extra disk space usage isn't that much of a problem on modern computers. Reducing the size is possible by NTFS file compression, which will reduce the folder size to some 60-75% of the original.
april 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.226.121 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- ... and drops the computer performance to 1% of the original. Fleet Command (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, saying that the "extra disk space usage isn't that much of a problem" is absurd. The purpose of using a DLL in the first place is to allow common code to be shared. If disk usage isn't a concern, then the entire argument of DLLs, "DLL Hell," and side-by-side would be moot, and every application would simply statically link all of its code. Obviously, modern applications don't do this, so modern application developers are, in general, still concerned about disk space usage. I'm a bit surprised that this article doesn't make note of the fact that this whole side-by-side architecture effectively makes DLLs useless for exactly these reasons. -LesPaul75talk 03:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that is your POV. As long as I am concerned, DLLs never meant to reduce disk usage. As far as I am thaught, DLL is mean of avoiding the "re-invention of the wheel" (i.e. re-writing the same proven code every time it is needed), teamwork (splitting development time between developers), sharing code between developers (e.g. DirectX, .NET Framework, etc.) and extensibility. Just look at the program folder of every computer program that you like. Most of the time you see DLLs there but only that program uses those DLLs. Fleet Command (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, a DLL has nothing to do with code reuse. You can use someone else's code by just compiling their source into your executable. Or, if they do not wish to distribute their source, they can give you a "LIB" file, which is a library that can be statically linked into your executable. The point of a DLL is, explicitly, to allow you to "Dynamically Link" to code, solely for the purpose of reducing the size of your executable. -LesPaul75talk 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- And you have officially denounced all my books, training courses and my certificate with a highly debatable statement. Let's keep this by the book: Are you suggesting a change to the article or or are you just talking? If you are suggesting a change, do you have a reference? Is your source compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research? Fleet Command (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, a DLL has nothing to do with code reuse. You can use someone else's code by just compiling their source into your executable. Or, if they do not wish to distribute their source, they can give you a "LIB" file, which is a library that can be statically linked into your executable. The point of a DLL is, explicitly, to allow you to "Dynamically Link" to code, solely for the purpose of reducing the size of your executable. -LesPaul75talk 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that is your POV. As long as I am concerned, DLLs never meant to reduce disk usage. As far as I am thaught, DLL is mean of avoiding the "re-invention of the wheel" (i.e. re-writing the same proven code every time it is needed), teamwork (splitting development time between developers), sharing code between developers (e.g. DirectX, .NET Framework, etc.) and extensibility. Just look at the program folder of every computer program that you like. Most of the time you see DLLs there but only that program uses those DLLs. Fleet Command (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, saying that the "extra disk space usage isn't that much of a problem" is absurd. The purpose of using a DLL in the first place is to allow common code to be shared. If disk usage isn't a concern, then the entire argument of DLLs, "DLL Hell," and side-by-side would be moot, and every application would simply statically link all of its code. Obviously, modern applications don't do this, so modern application developers are, in general, still concerned about disk space usage. I'm a bit surprised that this article doesn't make note of the fact that this whole side-by-side architecture effectively makes DLLs useless for exactly these reasons. -LesPaul75talk 03:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- In brief: most modern computers have enough hard disc space to make SXS folder bloat not to have too much impact, though it is still notable as a disadvantage, so that should stay in the article. Discussion as to whether "DLLs have nothing to do with code reuse" (which is frankly bollocks) belongs on some other page, perhaps DLL Hell or DLL. Reinderientalk/contribs 02:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- So, what does a DLL offer, in terms of code reuse, that a plain old LIB doesn't? Was the person who named it "DLL" intentionally misleading everyone by putting the words "dynamic link" in the name? I agree that this discussion belongs elsewhere (possibly outside of Wikipedia entirely) but I was just attempting to point out the absurdity of the very first comment about disk space usage. And if you understand the purpose of DLLs, then you understand the absurdity of the statement. -LesPaul75talk 06:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
DLL makes things like DirectX, Java SE, Adobe Flash Player, SCSI Pass-Through Direct and Firefox Plug-ins possible. Sharing source code is not a thing of proprietary software. (Even if it was, having to recompile the source code of DirectX each time means an additional 2000 hours of compiling for each computer game project.) DLL offers other benefits like explicit runtime linking, memory and page management, on-demand loading and unloading, and plug-ins. Fleet Command (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is that there is some misunderstanding about what a "LIB" is. It is exactly like a DLL except that it is linked statically. You could link all of DirectX or any of those other technologies statically, and you do not need to recompile a LIB before linking it. The reason for linking something dynamically is so that every application that uses DirectX, for example, does not need to contain the entire DirectX library inside its EXE image. It's simply an issue of executable size, and nothing else. It has nothing to do with proprietary software, either, because a LIB is a binary image, just like a DLL. -LesPaul75talk 18:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- So, what does a DLL offer, in terms of code reuse, that a plain old LIB doesn't? Was the person who named it "DLL" intentionally misleading everyone by putting the words "dynamic link" in the name? I agree that this discussion belongs elsewhere (possibly outside of Wikipedia entirely) but I was just attempting to point out the absurdity of the very first comment about disk space usage. And if you understand the purpose of DLLs, then you understand the absurdity of the statement. -LesPaul75talk 06:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)