Re: Python recompile

On 09/03/2025 09:43, Michael S wrote:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:47:28 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:46:14 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:

On 08/03/2025 15:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:09:17 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled:

My idea is similar to supplying binaries, but replacing each
binary file with one C source file. This now needs a C compiler
to turn into a binary, but nothing else. No configure, no
makefiles, virtually no special options, no special compiler
needed and no special version.

>
So instead of just typing "make" the user has to know how to
invoke the compiler, possibly with certain switches set. Not sure
how thats any better.

>
I've just typed 'make' in a Windows prompt. Nothing happens
('command not recognised'). That's a good start!

>
I'm not particularly interested in windows development. Microsoft
seems to have made it as complicated as possibly with its ridiculous
overcomplicated project files. From a unix POV all I want to do if
I'm building a package from source is to type "make" after selecting
the correct makefile.
>

So according to you, this should be a piece of piss. OK, I'll try
it:

>
I'm not really interested in your straw men.
>
>

 Pay attention that all this slow, complicated 'configure' business
didn't originate on Windows. It was invented in order to cover variety
of Unixen. Which (variety) no longer exists, but religious 'free
software' people like to pretend that it is still relevant and continue
to use configure.

It's more likely that they don't even think about it. It's just the way it's always been done, and they don't question it.
They only get vocal when it is necessary to build on a non-Unix environment and complain that it is rubbish because all that baggage is missing.
Then their program written in the 'portable' C language, even when it isn't full of POSIX header files, is not quite so portable because of external factors.