[EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Michael Hoffman wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> 
>> a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
>>  version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
> 
> I use a binary version of Python compiled with an open-source
> compiler on Windows that was provided by someone else.

Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?

>> b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python 
>> source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
> 
> Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available 
> compiler.

Obvious: Courtesy [against the userbase needs]

Obvious: Consistency [same code-base across different compiler]

>> f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements /
>> rationales available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is
>> unsupported, although parts of the community obviously like to use
>> it?
> 
> Not to my knowledge.
[...] - (guess & comments)

thank you.

> Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of 
> Python that does what you want.

I'm not intrested in patching.

I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original
implementors.

I need a solid fundament for my development.

>> [google is _not_ a fried here. I like to have a stable development
>>  environment, which is supported by the official projects, thus it
>> can pass quality-assurance without beeing afraid about every next
>> release.]
> 
> Then you have several options:
> 
> a) use a supported development environment

Requirement: "full open-source tool-chain".

> b) do the work yourself to support MinGW

this would be not neccessary, as others do this work already.

My question (that you've ommited) was: why does the python foundation 
not include this efforts?

[REQUOTE]
>> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
>> python source code base?
>> 
>> http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
>> 
>> above link found in this thread:
>> 
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/c9f0444c467de525
>> 
[/REQUOTE]

> c) pay someone else to do the work
> 
> But don't act like the volunteers who develop Python owe you a
> version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW. They don't,
> anymore than you owe *me* a version of Python that runs out of the
> box on MinGW.

I think Python is a serious Open Source System, driven by the Python 
Foundation.

Serious Open Source Systems should serve the basic needs of their 
community, especially if there are many depending systems.

If it is a programming language, the requirement "using an open-source 
toolchain" is a rational and valid one.

The Python Foundation ingores this requirement, this way creating a
chain of neccessary manual uncontrolled actions.

This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].

> Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly 
> compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.

I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.

[you should really avoid this tenor. Python is not an open-source
project of a few teenies. It's a serious programming-language, which 
could be adopted by e.g. more phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]

-

The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an 
automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many 
community members would be more than happy to contribute.

.

-- 
http://lazaridis.com