Re: [Boost-users] Linker error with boost_1_36_0

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Linker error with boost_1_36_0
From: Adam Merz (adammerz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-10 14:09:49

DDBeatty writes:
> Why is a static library a better option than a dynamic link library in most
> cases?
> 
> As a Windows developer (don't enjoy labelling myself that way but it is
> true) I have always been partial to DLL's.  And I think that the "default"
> behavior a Windows developer expects is DLL's at least it is for me.
> 
> My current opinion is that BOOST_ALL_DYN_LINK should be mentioned in the
> "Getting Started on Windows" documentation.

As I said, it is only my opinion. :-) I'm there are technical merits both ways,
but I meant to make it clear my suggestion was subjective.

For me, it's the exact opposite -- on Windows I link everything statically by
default and use shared libraries only if I have to (WPO is a major factor,
especially for libraries that benefit so greatly from additional inlining, as
most Boost libs do), whereas on Linux I used shared libraries nearly exclusively.