sites

Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository.
Log | Files | Refs

commit 4c25b668f4a2d623a573f85aa99ba6ff2921d534
parent 9c42127c2f8da8db83820313cb22d6680282583f
Author: Neven Sajko <nsajko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Dec 2014 04:14:35 +0100

Reword

The three instances of word hack too close together were bothering me.

Diffstat:
Msta.li/faq.md | 15++++++++-------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sta.li/faq.md b/sta.li/faq.md @@ -120,15 +120,16 @@ instantaniously, because the payload is already in the memory. In the dynamic case the startup is not instantaniously because the dynamic linker has to make sure that there were no updates in the dependencies. -So all in all dynamic executables are painfully slow, regardless what hacks on -top people came up with in the past. There is zero evidence that dynamic -linking makes executables faster. There is only some evidence that preloading -dynamic libraries vs not preloading dynamic libraries improves the startup of -dynamic executables. But the introduction of preloading comes to a cost as -well, the kernel will have to do much more work when supporting such hacks. +So all in all dynamic executables are painfully slow, regardless of what +inelegant hacks people came up with in the past. There is zero evidence that +dynamic linking makes executables faster. There is only some evidence that +preloading dynamic libraries vs not preloading dynamic libraries improves the +startup of dynamic executables. But the introduction of preloading comes to a +cost as well, the kernel will have to do much more work when supporting such +contrivances. Dynamic linking also greately increases the complexity of the kernel VM and -makes it much slower. And those hacks that try to prevent this make things more +makes it much slower. And kludgy solutions to this make things more complicated and add many more points of total failure. See also