Difference between static and shared libraries?

Question

What is the difference between static and shared libraries?

I use Eclipse and there are several project types including Static Libraries and Shared Libraries? Does one have an advantage over the other?

Answer 1

Properties	Static library	Shared library
Linking time	It happens as the last step of the compilation process. After the program is placed in memory	Shared libraries are added during linking process when executable file and libraries are added to the memory.
Means	Performed by linkers	Performed by operating System
Size	Static libraries are much bigger in size because external programs are built in the executable file.	Dynamic libraries are much smaller, because there is only one copy of dynamic library that is kept in memory.
External file changes	Executable file will have to be recompiled if any changes were applied to external files.	In shared libraries, no need to recompile the executable.
Time	Takes longer to execute because loading into the memory happens every time while executing.	It is faster because shared library code is already in the memory.
Compatibility	Never has a compatibility issue, since all code is in one executable module.	Programs are dependent on having a compatible library. Dependent program will not work if gets removed from the system

Answer 2

@Edit: For example, a project is referred to by another project. In C# projects, the project referred to is a static library because it is compiled as well when its referrer is compiled. But if it were in the form of a DLL, not a project, that is, in a compiled form; then it would be a shared(dynamic) library reference.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  +-  |    Shared(dynamic)       |   Static Library (Linkages)         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Pros: | less memory use          |   an executable, using own libraries|
|      |                          |     ,coming with the program,       |
|      |                          |   doesn't need to worry about its   |
|      |                          |   compilebility subject to libraries|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Cons: | implementations of       |   bigger memory uses                |
|      | libraries may be altered |                                     |
|      | subject to OS  and its   |                                     |
|      | version, which may affect|                                     |
|      | the compilebility and    |                                     |
|      | runnability of the code  |                                     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer 3

Shared libraries are .so (or in Windows .dll, or in OS X .dylib) files. All the code relating to the library is in this file, and it is referenced by programs using it at run-time. A program using a shared library only makes reference to the code that it uses in the shared library.

Static libraries are .a (or in Windows .lib) files. All the code relating to the library is in this file, and it is directly linked into the program at compile time. A program using a static library takes copies of the code that it uses from the static library and makes it part of the program. [Windows also has .lib files which are used to reference .dll files, but they act the same way as the first one].

There are advantages and disadvantages in each method:

• Shared libraries reduce the amount of code that is duplicated in each program that makes use of the library, keeping the binaries small. It also allows you to replace the shared object with one that is functionally equivalent, but may have added performance benefits without needing to recompile the program that makes use of it. Shared libraries will, however have a small additional cost for the execution of the functions as well as a run-time loading cost as all the symbols in the library need to be connected to the things they use. Additionally, shared libraries can be loaded into an application at run-time, which is the general mechanism for implementing binary plug-in systems.

• Static libraries increase the overall size of the binary, but it means that you don't need to carry along a copy of the library that is being used. As the code is connected at compile time there are not any additional run-time loading costs. The code is simply there.

Personally, I prefer shared libraries, but use static libraries when needing to ensure that the binary does not have many external dependencies that may be difficult to meet, such as specific versions of the C++ standard library or specific versions of the Boost C++ library.

Answer 4

Static libraries are compiled as part of an application, whereas shared libraries are not. When you distribute an application that depends on shared libaries, the libraries, eg. dll's on MS Windows need to be installed.

The advantage of static libraries is that there are no dependencies required for the user running the application - e.g. they don't have to upgrade their DLL of whatever. The disadvantage is that your application is larger in size because you are shipping it with all the libraries it needs.

As well as leading to smaller applications, shared libraries offer the user the ability to use their own, perhaps better version of the libraries rather than relying on one that's part of the application

Answer 5

On top of all the other answers, one thing not mentionned yet is decoupling :

Let me speak about a real world production code,that I have been dealing with :

A very big software, made of >300 projects (with visual studio), mostly build as static lib and finally all link together in one huge executable , you end up with the following problems :

-Link time is extremely long. You might end up by more than 15min of link, for let's say 10s of compilation time -Some tools are on their knee with such a big executable , like memory check tools that must instrument the code. You might fall into reaching limits that had been seen as fools.

More problematic is the decoupling of your software : on this real world example, headers files of every project were reacheable from any others projects. As a consequence it was extremely easy for one developer to add dependencies; it was just about including the header, because link at the end will allwaws find symbols. It ends up by horrible cycling dependencies and complete mess.

With shared library, it's a bit of extra work because developer must edit the project build system to add the dependent library. I observed that shared library code tends to offer a cleaner code API.

Answer 6

Simplified:

• Static linking: one large executable
• Dynamic linking: a small executable plus one or more library files (.dll files on Windows, .so on Linux, or .dylib on macOS)

Answer 7

A static library is like a bookstore, and a shared library is like... a library. With the former, you get your own copy of the book/function to take home; with the latter you and everyone else go to the library to use the same book/function. So anyone who wants to use the (shared) library needs to know where it is, because you have to "go get" the book/function. With a static library, the book/function is yours to own, and you keep it within your home/program, and once you have it you don't care where or when you got it.

Answer 8

The most significant advantage of shared libraries is that there is only one copy of code loaded in memory, no matter how many processes are using the library. For static libraries each process gets its own copy of the code. This can lead to significant memory wastage.

OTOH, a advantage of static libraries is that everything is bundled into your application. So you don't have to worry that the client will have the right library (and version) available on their system.

Answer 9

For a static library, the code is extracted from the library by the linker and used to build the the final executable at the point you compile/build your application. The final executable has no dependencies on the library at run time

For a shared library, the compiler/linker checks that the names you link with exist in the library when the application is built, but doesn't move their code into the application. At run time, the shared library must be available.

The C programming language itself has no concept of either static or shared libraries - they are completely an implementation feature.

Personally, I much prefer to use static libraries, as it makes software distribution simpler. However, this is an opinion over which much (figurative) blood has been shed in the past.