On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 03:33:05PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > On 30.07.21 00:32, Josef Grosch via Dng wrote: > > > Global variables are a disaster looking for a place to happen, avoid at > > all cost. The scope of variables should be as small as possible. > > it depends ... for small programs where you really *know* (by > definition) there really may only be one instance of that data, it might > be actually the better solution - in that case you know the working set > for sure (size of .data). This is the kind of programming where you also > rely on the OS (kernel, supervisor, container, ...) doing all post > termination cleanups. > > Many Plan9 programs are written in that way - they're so damn small that > they just don't need much function local (or even dynamically allocated) > data.
If the program is that small, global variables already satisfy the "as small as possible" convention. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
