I would think so. Can anyone eli5 why statically linking binaries is a big deal?
Even light weight container oriented linux distributions like alpine ship with musl. In which scenario would it find it use cases?
Massively simplifies the build process, especially for cross-compilation. You can just build the binary, copy it over and run it, without having to ever touch containers, or having to worry about sysroots.
You can go ahead and do the following on your Mac:
GOARCH=riscv GOOS=linux go build
to build a binary that just runs on Linux on RISC-V.
One advantage is that you need to worry less about versions; if I build a dynamic library that uses a feature from GNU libc 2.30, and someone tries to run it with GNU libc 2.23 then they will get an error.
These versions are not chosen at random: I ran in to this issue with people trying to run my binary on Ubuntu 16.04 (LTS release), which was solved by linking it statically.
Also, people may use musl libc, and while it has some compatibility with GNU libc this is far from complete.
So in short, linking it statically means it will work for the largest amount of people with a minimal of fuss for both the person building the binaries, and the people running them.
As people have mentioned, these issues are less present on non-Linux systems.
But that's a lot more effort, and who knows if someone is still using a CentOS or whatnot with an even older version. And it still won't work for other libc implementations.
Adding an extra megabyte or so is a reasonable trade-off, with no real other downsides. It's not that large – smaller than many websites.
First of all, I though we are past the time where attacking other’s beliefs is acceptable.
Second, have you ever heard of this thing called philosophy? It is not useless to think about the word in an abstract way - without necessary relevance to the physical world. Like, what IS math?
By the way, I do not approve of those believer that go against science, since I think belief and actual reality can go hand-in-hand, and even with God, or perhaps because of Him, one can appreciate the beauty of sciences.
I respect beliefs that aren't pushed on someone. For example, I have a working idea of the universe with regards to sprituality that involves neither science nor religion. I don't push that belief on others, I only offer it when my opinion is asked, and I discuss it with an open mind towards the idea that I might be completely wrong. That type of belief should absolutely be respected.
If we start from a primitive prokaryote, we pretty much nailed it. However, there's no experimentally verified theory of going from organic molecules to life.
> These books should help you understand the science behind life's existence
Those can explain how life evolves once it already exists. And there's no argument about that, we know many laws governing those processes, from molecular to population-scale models.
However, nobody was able to show that life can emerge from non-living matter.
Please can you elaborate on the objective measures of code quality part? Do you mean to use static analysis tools like code climate?
Also, if you don't mind can you share some good reads/books which cover these topics?
Thanks
