[Python-Dev] Re: No-cost optimizing VC 7.1

[Alex Martelli]

On Monday 19 April 2004 10:03 pm, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Moore, Paul wrote:
> > I don't know if anyone has stats on how many of the 3rd party
> > extension authors who currently provide Windows binaries have
> > access to MSVC7, and so can make the switch. It may be "all of
> > them". I don't have MSVC7, although I do have MSVC6 (my company,
> > or at least my group, never upgraded) but I've no idea how unusual
> > my situation is. A heads-up on c.l.p would probably be worth it,
> > but it's also likely to generate a huge amount of FUD, and anti-
> > Microsoft rants.
>
> Given that the Python release is still several months ahead,
> I'd advise against such a posting. Personally, I don't know
> a single VC6 user who doesn't also have a copy of VC.NET 2003
> available (except for you, whom I only know via email :-)

Add me to the set of VC6 users who don't have VC.NET 2003 (basically because 
the Windows I run is still Win98 -- as I can run it under Linux with cheap 
win4lin -- and VC.NET doesn't support that old Win version).  Still, I 
suspect my particular reason is rare -- and from this thread, if I understand 
it correctly, I gather that if you do run Win/XP, as most do these days of 
course, it doesn't cost extra money to get a compiler able to build Python 
extensions.


> In any case, the only possible change out of this discussion
> is that Python 2.4 would be built with VC6. I personally know
> a few people which have VC.NET 2003, but not VC6, because you
> cannot purchase the latter one, anymore. So, standardizing
> on .NET 2003 is a good thing: it means that .NET (2002) gets

Yes, if VC6 cannot be purchased then it would be too backwards-looking for 
Python 2.4 to require it from extension-authors.  Presumably, for a Python 
release coming out in 2004, the fact that you cannot build extensions if the 
only Windows version you run is win98 is acceptable (sigh).


Alex