From: Walter Wang [MSFT] on
Thanks for the follow-up. Please feel free to let me know if there's
anything I can help.


Regards,
Walter Wang (wawang(a)online.microsoft.com, remove 'online.')
Microsoft Online Community Support

==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

From: David Wilkinson on
David Lowndes wrote:

>>>SxS is a bizarre and baroque solution to a problem that has been
>>>adequately
>>>solved for at least a decade. It is a huge and unnecessary complication.
>>
>>Thanks for that. I was beginning to think that I was alone.
>
>
> Rest assured, neither of you are. It's a PITA.

Can you spell ...... Static Linking ?

David Wilkinson
From: David Lowndes on
>Can you spell ...... Static Linking ?

Yes, that's what I use wherever possible, but in some circumstances I
have to use the DLLs.

Dave Lowndes
From: Tim Roberts on
David Wilkinson <no-reply(a)effisols.com> wrote:
>
>David Lowndes wrote:
>
>>>>SxS is a bizarre and baroque solution to a problem that has been
>>>>adequately
>>>>solved for at least a decade. It is a huge and unnecessary complication.
>>>
>>>Thanks for that. I was beginning to think that I was alone.
>>
>>
>> Rest assured, neither of you are. It's a PITA.
>
>Can you spell ...... Static Linking ?

That's just not acceptable. I'm working on one rather large project that
includes some 40 DLLs. There's no way we should be forced to pay the
penalty of 40 copies of the run-time library, besides the fact that it adds
an additional level of complexity to memory allocations.

Microsoft has BROKEN something that was NOT broken, with absolutely no
discernible benefit for application developers.
--
Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.