Greg A. Woods wrote:
> You have a strange outlook on these things.
> 
> "dynamic loading" does not equate to "modern" -- just because the
> monkeys in Redmond are doing it doesn't mean it's a "good thing", nor
> that it's even remotely modern.
> 
> Avoiding "dynamic loading" does not equate to "stagnation".

Dynamic linking definitely has its place. I think it's overused, but it
is useful. It can save memory, and it's a convenience feature. Though I
think it's being used where it shouldn't also. Statically-linked
binaries will load faster, so they're more suitable for busy fork/exec
servers. Linking statically when developing helps to show a programmer
just how much bloat is being pulled into your executable, and which
libraries are more bloated than others.