Re: DLL vs static library
I typically only create DLLs if the same code needs to be used by more than
one program that may be running at the same time or if I don't need the code
loaded all the time or for resources. Even though it's fairly easy to
install them, it's also easy to have old versions laying around from
previous installs or other problems and I just don't see the benefit.
Static linking will make your .EXE look larger, but the smaller .EXE with
DLLs is just a trick.
Bottom line: it's pretty much up to you.
Tom
<worlman385@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:anl2045tgmucbal01u00suqmna9oo6br5e@4ax.com...
I have a library build as a DLL with all the function exported like -
=============
LIB_API BOOL CreateLibInstance();
LIB_API HRESULT PostRequest(string const& start, string const& end);
LIB_API HRESULT LoadXMLData(LPCTSTR tszXMLFileName);
LIB_API HRESULT GetTVData();
=============
but my friend told me to create a static Library instead of DLL, he
said if I create a DLL - I will need to / have
1) .DLL
2) .Lib
but for static library, I only create 1 .Lib file. which is easier
files, but I looked into the DEBUG directory, I only found a DLL
created for my DLL library project.
Now I am confused. Did my friend told me wrong?? since my friend has
alot experience on windows programming.
================
For me I believe static library (DLL) and static library (.Lib) is
same thing expect DLL i need to export each function, which has abit
more work. (since static library I do it the same as regular C++
programming)
But I am still confused that a DLL project will have a DLL + a .Lib
and I had been told it's less handy as static library.