Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Isn't pdb for debugging and can be deleted before 'release'?
- - -
The "one binary" does even more: Your C# binary probably depends on more files (standard library, CLR runtime, whatever) whereas the go binary does not.
Marl3x28801yWhat I am asking myself: Is there any advantage to using a Server over a built binary like Go is creating?
I mean fuck efficiency in the name of simplicity?
Dynamic libraries were created for a reason: install them once, all programs can use them.
Is this something that Go ignores? If it does, I'll take it off my list of languages to learn.
PS: You can do this in c and c++ too. You just need to statically link everything to your output.
@AlgoRythm this isn't about dynamically linking in general, or sacrificying efficiency. I like things being efficient, I'm German after all.
This is mainly about the rather confusing state of the .net ecosystem.
As I mentioned before, there are several frameworks/runtimes, some official libraries are available on some runtimes, but not on others and so on. This is just confusing, even though I've been working with the language for quite a while now.
I'm sort of hopeful the upcoming .NET 5 makes the situation a bit better, but time will tell.
And about Go: I'm no Go expert, I only played around with it a bit. But I would guess you can dynamically link libraries.
DannySu11241yIf you using .net core, you can build everything into a single exe.
In .net framework, the is a tool call ILmerge can do that too.