Re: Static or Shared MFC DLLs?
Mikep wrote:
Yes Paul, you're missing the point that the exe size is irrelevant. Totally.
I'd say that 90% of the MFC apps that I've developed in the last 13 or so
years have used static linking for the MFC libraries.
Users are very clever about abusing their systems - they'll install your app
on one system and then copy the app to another system --- where it wont
run.... Or they'll install a rogue app that installs obsolete MFC dlls - and
now your app wont run. Or any of a thousand different ways to screw you up.
So if you statically link, you can give the users an app that has no
dependancies. It just runs..... Or you can show up in the morning and be
greeted with an email complaining that your app wont run because of 'An
Invalid Ordinal Failure'. And it's critical for the customer to have this
fixed by noon or it gets esculated to the division manager.
Mike P
Mike,
You're missing the point about "side-by-side" installation of the MFC
DLLs. No longer do you have the "DLL Hell" caused by some rogue app
installation replacing your MFC DLLs. That's the whole reason for the
manifest concept and the WinSxS, etc. It solves DLL Hell (and replaces
it with Manifest Purgatory).
Scot