[ethin]

The only exception to this general rule (which, to be clear, I agree with) is when your code for whatever links to LGPL licensed code. A project I'm a major contributor of does this (we have no choice but to use these libraries, due to the requirements we have, though we do it via implib.so (well, okay, the plan is to do that)), and so dynamic linking/DLL hell is the only path we are able to take. If we link statically to the libraries, the LGPL pretty much becomes the GPL.

[benreesman]

Sure, there are use cases. Extensions to e.g. Python are a perfectly reasonable usecase for `dlopen` (hooking DNS on all modern Linux is...probably not for our benefit).

There are use cases for dynamic linking. It's just user-hostile as a mandatory default for a bunch of boring and banal reasons: KitWare doesn't want `pkg-config` to work because who would use CMake if they had straightforward alternatives. The Docker Industrial complex has no reason to exist in a world where Linus has been holding the line of ABI compatibility for 30 years.

Dynamic linking is fine as an option, I think it's very reasonable to ship a `.so` alongside `.a` and other artifacts.

Forcing it on everyone by keeping `pkg-config` and `musl` broken is a more costly own goal for computing that Tony Hoare's famous billion dollar mistake.