Wholly unnecessary flame. (was Re: pyXML!)

Sun Oct 1 04:02:18 EDT 2000

root at 127.0.0.1 (David) writes:

> Question: Why was VC chosen as the development platform, instead of an
> open-source compiler?

Chosen by whom? By Mark Hammond? Probabably because that was the
compiler he had available, and knew best. By BeOpen? Probably
following tradition, and knowing that extension writers expect
VC++-compatible import libraries.

> Question: Are any VC-specific features/code/tweaks being used?  Why would
> the developers choose to bind the code to VC, rather than aim for
> cross-compiler compatibility?

Answer: not that I know of.

> Question: Are build files so different between compilers that there is no
> automatic tool for converting from build to build?

Answer: Yes.

> Question: Why wouldn't every Windows-platform code release include a binary
> file, to accomodate the vast numbers of Windows users who don't have VC,
> don't know how to operate the VC compiler and, frankly, really would rather
> get on with using the code instead of wrestling with compiling it?

Answer: I don't understand the question. What is a "Windows-platform
code release"? You mean "Windows 95", "Windows NT", or "Windows 2000"?
And what is a "binary file"? Windows includes many binary files...

> From my perspective, it makes absolutely no sense for any developer to (a)
> not distribute binaries for their Windows port; and (b) to force users to
> install a commercial compiler to create binaries.

Which developer did not distribute binaries for their Windows port?
I agree: If there are no binaries, it's not a Windows port.

Regards,
Martin