Python MSVC++ binaries considered evil

[Mark Hammond]

Cliff Wells wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:46:25 -0500
> Tim Peters wrote:

>>[Cliff Wells]
>>
>>>And I imagine at least part of the reason for Windows volunteers
>>>being rare is not many of them have a C/C++ compiler that they can
>>>use to compile Python.
>>>
>>Python is written in standard C, so the notion that only MSVC is capable
>>
> of
> 
>>compiling it is absurd.  If you want the *Windows*-specific features to
>>work, though, you have to play the Windows API game, and MSVC excels at
>>
> that
> 
>>part.
>>
> 
> What I was trying to say is that for a Windows user to actually do the
> compilation with a free compiler, it is nowhere near as simple as it is for
> say Linux, where gcc is the standard.  Obviously Python itself is very
> portable.  I also won't disagree that VC++ may in fact be the best Windows
> compiler (probably for reasons best left to the antitrust courts).

You are still missing Tim's point.  Most professional Windows developers 
tend to have MSVC.  This means that for most professional Windows 
developers it is in many ways *simpler* than Linux - no configure or 
install.

Python is that way on Windows because people found it not working for 
them, and contributed build changes back until it did.  This exact thing 
has started happening with the free compilers now too, which is excellent.

However, asking for it to happen wont make it happen.  You asked for it 
to happen, and Tim told you why the main Python guys are not making it 
happen.

...
> Since I was replying to your post, maybe you misinterpreted my intention,
> but I wasn't suggesting that PythonLabs should be responsible for it.  This
> list _is_ "the community" so I was discussing it here.  

Discussions don't make it happen either ;-)  The precedents have been 
set, and basic support is already in the code base - it just needs work.

> This is of course the classic problem with the Windows platform: everyone
> uses (or believes everyone else does) Microsoft tools so everyone who
> doesn't want to drop $$$ for them is left out (or at least left looking for
> pre-built binaries).  

Nor complaining...

> I guess we can hold our breath for the day when MS
> includes a basic C/C++ compiler and libraries with the OS.  

Or, you can hold your breath waiting for the day for someone in the 
Python community to make it happen.  Why not you?

Microsoft today have the best Windows compiler. It was not that many 
years ago when it had the *only* 32-bit Windows compiler.  I believe 
they have a right to charge money for such a tool, while applauding any 
(free or otherwise) competitors that offer a reasonable choice.

 > Still, I think I'll look at it this weekend.

Excellent - that's the spirit! :-)

Mark.