Shared libraries if you refer to DLLs it's actually a bad name, it's one of the rare occasions that Microsoft got the naming correct. It's actually a dynamically linked library, there is no sharing of execution or data and that applies for all OSes whether they call them shared libraries or not. Actually shared memory is one of the very few exception that an OS will share memory and even in that case you won't be given the data or code memory of another process . So each time an executable loads the DLL/Shared Library a new instance get linked dynamically with its own execution and data memory which only the executable that is linked to can access , however only one executable can do this. If that was not the case then there would be no reason to use Shared Memory and we all would be using DLLs.if you want share data , shared memory is your only option, other IPCs just copy memory around. On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 at 00:49, CodeDmitry <dimamakhnin@gmail.com> wrote:
Is the layering really that horrible as long as the library is already shared because it is shared between processes (being in shared libraries which are relies on by many programs), and as long as as much of that overhead is stripped at compile time?
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Can-Pharo-VM-be-altered-to-act-like-GNUStep-as-well-tp... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.