commit: 81b7e064ede5235341bf534da6f41f3cee549d06
parent 5143aa2346f5d0c567a66b888c4dfbce8bdf8b6d
Author: Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier <contact@hacktivis.me>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 19:00:09 +0200
Rust sucks as a system language.xhtml: Fix formatting
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/articles/Rust sucks as a system language.xhtml b/articles/Rust sucks as a system language.xhtml
@@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
<p>There is only Static Linking… another thing where a lot of stuff was thrown around, my take about linking is:<ul>
<li>Dynamic Linking is great for shared libraries on a managed system so you can fix something once a for all</li>
<li>Static Linking is great for distributing binaries on unknown systems (Netscape still runs with official static binaries today, it's hopeless with dynamic)</li>
- <li>Static Linking isn't well integrated in packaging systems (it's more often used for a minimalist rescue system, which tends to be a completely separated system)</p>
+ <li>Static Linking isn't well integrated in packaging systems (it's more often used for a minimalist rescue system, which tends to be a completely separated system)</li>
<li>Dynamic and Static Linking have both points for security and it all goes down if the system/environment is controlled or not (and any code in a broken environment is going to be broken anyway)</li>
</ul></p>
-<p>Additionally as far as I know, there is also no shared location on the system for static libraries (<code>.la</code> files in C) nor source code either (instead of binaries it could be the source).<p>
+<p>Additionally as far as I know, there is also no shared location on the system for static libraries (<code>.la</code> files in C) nor source code either (instead of binaries it could be the source).</p>
<p>So we end up with applications packages that are easy to spread out but difficult/impossible to maintain in the long term… I would call that a virus, good or evil.</p>
<h2>npm-like scene for libraries</h2>
