- E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

[Diez B. Roggisch]

>> Where does that requirement come from? If you want to create large
>> scale apps, the price for a msvc++ compiler shouldn't matter. And:
>> Windows is a non-free platform at first. If you have to or want to
>> develop on top of it, be prepared to pay. Its as simple as that. If
>> you want something cheaper - you'll have to put some effort into it.
>> Or use linux.
> 
> I will not go into this 'twisting' games.

Because it renders your point moot?

> the requirement "Use of an open-source tool-chain" is nothing special.

There is a OS-tool-chain supported on windows, cygwin. 

> MinGW is not "every imaginable platform/compliler".

Certainly not - but its one more dependency on an otherwise perfectly
working platform. Now why should there be any need to introduce this
dependency, if not a wide communitity desire is behind it - which seems not
to be the case. And recently, MS released a free version of its compiler.
I'm not sure if that's working for python - but if not, I think it would be
the more important thing to support on _windows_.

> I'm not intrested in creating an distribution.

Obviously nobody else is. 

> 
> I provide an analysis of the situation, context: newcomer, disapointed
> from JAVA.

That doesn't belong here. You don't get points for not liking java. And
beside that: I don't like it too, but if I have to use it because my
requirements analysis shows that it is the tool for the job - I use it.
Hopefully with jython somewhere. 

So if you find that missing mingw support renders python useless for you,
don't use it. But that would only be the case if you _actually_ create an
extension - something  I personally haven't the need for. And I developed
quite large python apps.

>>> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
>>> python source code base?
>>> 
>>> http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

Ask the author of the patch. We can't read minds here.

-- 
Regards,

Diez B. Roggisch