From vdergachev at rcgardis.com  Sat Jan 20 03:42:13 2007
From: vdergachev at rcgardis.com (Vladimir Dergachev)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:42:13 -0500
Subject: [Rd] C vs. C++ as learning and development tool for R
In-Reply-To: <20070119234658.GA7413@wheat.betterworld.us>
References: <836F00680EECD340A96AD34ECFF3B534B4A731@iu-mssg-mbx106.ads.iu.edu>
	<20070119234658.GA7413@wheat.betterworld.us>
Message-ID: <200701192142.13562.vdergachev@rcgardis.com>

On Friday 19 January 2007 6:46 pm, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:55:30AM -0500, Kimpel, Mark William wrote:
> I can't say much about "libraries already on other machines", but the
> C runtime is probably the one you can count on being there the most.

Well, I don't think it is there on Windows machines - and it is specific to 
the compiler. Visual C has several different versions, Borland had its own 
and there were several major releases of GNU C library.

My preference is that on Windows one only distributes static binaries, or, 
uses a small loadable object (i.e. dll) from Tcl/Tk or R.

On Linux I found it is best to link C and X11/GL libraries dynamically (as 
older versions are usually available) and link everything else statically. 
Major exception: condor linked binaries are static.

Caveat - I have not distributed anything but GPL/LGPL code, so making static 
binaries was not an issue. If you have a closed source application than any 
LGPL libraries you use must be linked dynamically and you cannot use GPL code 
at all.

                                   best

                                       Vladimir Dergachev



[Rd] C vs. C++ as learning and development tool for R
Vladimir Dergachev