Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.DLL formal review is ongoing
From: William Gallafent (william_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-14 06:09:52
On 13 July 2015 at 21:24, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I was trying to keep namings platform neutral: "dynamic library" is too
> Windows specific, "shared object" is too POSIX specific... Let it bee DLL
> for library abbreviation and "shared object" mostly in docs and source
On Mac OS, the files in question are generally named
âlibSomething.dylibâ, whereas on Windows the equivalent file would be
âsomething.dllâ. That seems to directly contradict your assertion that
âdynamic libraryâ is more Windows-specific, since âdylibâ looks more
like a contraction of that phrase than âdllâ to me.
More generally, and fwiw, in my mind I connect âDLLâ very tightly to
Windows, to the extent that if somebody says âDLLâ I think âwe're
talking about something which is exclusively related to Windowsâ. I
tend to use instead the term âshared libraryâ when referring to these
files in a platform-neutral way (in other words, when I say âshared
libraryâ I mean .dll on Windows, .dylib on Mac OS, and .so on Linux,
for example). In that way (none of these platforms uses a contraction
of âshared libraryâ as its way of visually identifying these files in
the filesystem) I try to separate cross-platform discussion from
platform-specific discussion. To me, âshared objectâ feels, as you
say, very POSIX-specific.
By way of comparison, the âfileâ utility on this Mac OS machine
returns, for example, â/opt/local/lib/libgtk-3.0.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit
dynamically linked shared library x86_64â. A similar example on Ubuntu
Linux: â/lib/libfuse.so.2.8.6: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64,
version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
Finally, on Windows I see of course
â/cygdrive/c/Windows/System32/ntdll.dll: PE32+ executable (DLL)
(console) x86-64, for MS Windowsâ.
There is in fact no /shared/ nomenclature between all three at all
there (because DLLs /are/ executables on Windows!). Something which
has the right connotations but which isn't the terminology returned by
that utility, or used as a filesystem contraction, for any specific
platform seems ideal.
> Any library related comments from any reviewer are welcomed even after the
> review end.
Apologies for the fact that my comments are purely in the area of nomenclature!
-- Bill Gallafent.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk