Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Doesn't .NET Include a Linker?

Posted by Cliff on from the down-with-static-executables dept.

CrypticSpawn asks: "I read an article on Joel on Software it talks about Microsoft missing one important thing from the .NET infrastructure, and I wanted to know what Slashdot readers thought were Microsoft's reasons for leaving [a linker] out?"

1 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. One possibilty by sbennett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One possible advantage to always dynamically linking: when some nasty bug in the runtime is found, it should be easier to upgrade the runtime than to relink every application that's been linked statically to it. Of course, people won't actually bother to upgrade, but you can see how the theory goes.

    Yes, I say when a nasty bug is found, and not just because it's a Microsoft product. No matter how good the software is, there's always at least one critical security flaw.