|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
- yup. computer science and computer programming are not the same thing. there's no science to this concept whatsoever. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"Usually, static linking will result in a significant performance improvement." This is wrong AFAIK. Might be true if every cycle counts, but 99.9% of the time, static linking should have no impact on performance. I could not find an article to support this, though. Only some forum posts and stackoverflow, so i don't dare to delete this section yet although i am positive it's wrong. -r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
.lib and .a
- The .lib extension is mainly used on Windows whereas .a is used on Unices. They are different file formats. -- intgr [talk] 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- "[...] [A] static library or statically-linked library is a set of routines, external functions and variables [...]"
There may be compilers that do linking, or call linkers, but there are other compilers that do not. Also, the output of a linker need not be an executable, but may itself be a member of a static link library. Both of these are common in the mainframe world. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Trolling for The C Book?
I find it somewhat odd that chapters of The C Book at http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/ appear as articles herein. I searched for "publications.gbdirect.co.uk" in response to another site that appeared to be a programming tutorial, but a quick glance at the source code revealed that if you remove references to that URI, you get a blank page.
"Pointer (computing)", "Declaration (computer programming)", "Command-line argument parsing", "Bit field", "C (programming language)" in addition to "Static library" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it an advantage (or disadvantage, depending on how you look at it) that you can use a library to distribute code while concealing how you've implemented it? i.e. it is closed source code? Dohzer (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)