Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?

[Mike Woolley]

Jason Rumney <address@hidden> writes:

> so linking dynamically is more flexible for binary distribution.

Would it be possible to link in the libraries statically and *not*
require the DLL's at all at run-time?

That would provide the following advantages:

1/ No DLL hell.
2/ User doesn't have to go and download all the dependent libraries.

Of course, the resulting program is bigger, but does that matter
these days?

Cheers,
Mike