Which C compiler?

[norseman]

Jive Dadson wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Jive Dadson wrote:
>>> I am using Python 2.4.  I need to make a native Python extension for
>>> Windows XP.  I have both VC++ 6.0 and Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition.
>>> Will VC++ 6.0 do the trick?  That would be easier for me, because the
>>> project is written for that one.  If not, will the 2005 compiler do it?
>>
>> In general, to build extension modules, you need to use the same VC
>> version as the one that was used to build Python. For 2.4, that would
>> be Visual Studio 2003. So if you use VC 6, VS 2005, or VS 2008, you
>> may run into problems.
>>
>> Depending on what exactly the extension module does, it might work
>> fine also.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin
> 
> Thanks.  I think I might just use some variety of Popen instead.  I 
> don't need much communication between the C++ application and Python, 
> and it's not time-critical.  I cannot get flush() to work on the Python 
> side of the pipe however I try.  That seems to be a common complaint. 
> But I can work around it.
> 
> I love Python, but the update regimen is very frustrating.  It's a 
> misery to me why every major release requires new versions of so much 
> application stuff.  No other software that I use is like that.  When I 
> upgrade Windoze, I do not have to get new matching versions of all my 
> editors, browsers, and whatnot.  But Python makes me do that, and that's 
> why I am stuck on release 2.4.  Even the pure Python stuff needs to be 
> copied from one "site-packages" to another.  Then I have to figure out 
> why it won't work.  I have fought my way through the upgrade path twice, 
> and I just can't face it again.
> 
> Thus endeth the rant.
==============================
I suspect that if all python users were in the same room and the 
question "Are you NOT happy with python's upgrade requirements?" was 
asked you would find most hands in the air.  I have said it before - the 
current attitude of 'new means we start over' was what nearly destroyed 
Apple. Doesn't take joe public long to get tired of constantly 
re-buying, re-writing themselves, re-hiring the same people to re-write 
the same thing, etc... Most people who do programming are not for hire. 
They are the ones that write for their discipline to make their routine 
chores easier and less typo/error prone and thus (hopefully) have more 
take home money with less effort at the end of the day.  I bump heads 
with version problems daily and it does not make me happy either.  Can 
anyone give a valid excuse for not having a "new version" widget getting 
a new name?  Say os25.popen  os26.popen  os30.popen
                  pylib25     pylib26     pylib30
Sorry, but "Because we had to change (...) to make it work with (...)" 
is NOT a valid excuse for ripping the whole thing apart. At the end of 
the day (the program run), the data is still the data. It probably is 
still going to the same form it's always been converted into. The form 
that the boo-koo dollars proprietary package demands.  In short, while 
Python is a good idea and can do a great job acting standalone in some 
cases and as well as the glue between things, it is not an end unto 
itself.  It's just another tool.  Tools that keep breaking get tossed 
into the trash can and the vendor that makes them gets bad mouthed to 
everyone who will listen.
That is reality.



Steve