boost - C++ application - should I use static or dynamic linking for the libraries?

Question

I am going to start a new C++ project that will rely on a series of libraries, including part of the Boost libraries, the log4cxx or the google logging library - and as the project evolves other ones as well (which I can not yet anticipate).

It will have to run on both 32 and 64 bit systems, most probably in a quite diverse Linux environment where I do not expect to have all the required libraries available nor su privileges.

My question is, should I build my application by dynamically or statically linking to all these libraries?

Notes:

(1) I am aware the static linking might be a pain during development (longer compile times, cross-compiling for both 32 and 64 bit, going down dependency chains to include all libraries, etc), but it's a lot easier during testing - just move the file and run.

(2) On the other hand, dynamic linking seams easier during development phase - short compile times, (don't really know how to handle dynamic linking to 64 bit libraries from my 32 bit dev environment), no hustle with dependency chains. Deployment of new versions on the other hand can be ugly - especially when new libraries are required (see condition above of not having su rights on the targeted machines, nor these libraries available).

(3) I've read the related questions regarding this topic but couldn't really figure out which approach would best fit my scenario.

Conclusions:

1. Thank you all for your input!
2. I will probably go with static linking because:
3. Easier deployment
4. Predictable performance and more consistent results during perf. testing (look at this paper: http://www.inf.usi.ch/faculty/hauswirth/publications/CU-CS-1042-08.pdf)
5. As pointed out, the size and duration of compilation of static vs. dynamic does not seem to be such a huge difference
6. Easier and faster test cycles
7. I can keep all the dev. cycle on my dev. machine

Answer 1

Static linking has a bad rap. We have huge hard drives these days, and extraordinarily fat pipes. Many of the old arguments in favor of dynamic linking are way less important now.

Plus, there is one really good reason to prefer static linking on Linux: The plethora of platform configurations out there make it almost impossible to guarantee your executable will work across even a small fraction of them without static linking.

I suspect this will not be a popular opinion. Fine. But I have 11 years experience deploying applications on Linux, and until something like LSB really takes off and really extends it's reach, Linux will continue to be much more difficult to deploy applications on. Until then, statically link your application, if you have to run across a wide range of platforms.