[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] LuaBinaries
- From: Antonio Scuri <scuri@...>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:34:30 -0300
The optimization is valid for Win32, but maybe it is not for other
At this time it is more important to keep some uniformity among
platforms instead of doing this kind of optimization.
And also because of the original distribution defines these two libraries.
At 18:01 30/3/2005, David Burgess wrote:
I have asked this question before.
Why have two (2) DLLs?
Reasons for one DLL:
a) Exactly half the hassle with naming conventions.
b) Both DLLs are small
c) Numbr of entry points and size of code in the LIB is trivially small
d) The DLLs are logically paired.
e) For WIN32 systems it is actually a minor performance optimization
to have one.
f) Simplifies deployment
I stress that there is a case in WIN32 for one DLL. The above points
may not apply to other OSs.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:58:28 -0300, Andre Carregal
> > Romulo Bahiense wrote
> > In the end, I think, it don't hurt much to press the
> > compile button, zip/gz/bz2 etc. and upload the DLL to somewhere. Does it?
> Sure not, but keep in mind that those DLLs would only work with the correct
> Lua binaries. And that was one of the motivations for the LuaBinaries
> distribution, offer some common ground for your wanted DLLs.
> Since we now have the base set, those libraries binaries will hopefully
> start to flow... :o)
> > Finally, again, I'm glad that somebody took the
> > initiative to make a standard set of binaries, specially for Windows.
> > Keep the good work ;)
> Thanks! But standard or not, we are still need to learn a lot on the road