Re: Python recompile

On 16/03/2025 10:06, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 14/03/2025 19:37, Richard Harnden wrote:

On 14/03/2025 19:04, bart wrote:

After all no one (according to you) was complaining about grappling
with 100 discrete files.

>
100 discrete files helps 100 developers not to step on each other's toes.
>
And most of those 100 .o's won't need to be recompiled on every make.
It's quicker and easier.
>

>
That may be true about the people who /develop/ this sqlite3 product.
>
But this is a file created to ease deployment by people who want to
/use/ it.
>
I don't know why nobody in this group can grasp that concept even though
I've explained it a hundred times. For example, I have a transpiler
product that turns a 50-module project in my language into a single,
easy-to-build C source file.
>
But everyone makes the same point about it being hard to manage. No one
is even going to look inside it!

 Do you realize that your amalgamation destroys most of C
modularization?

Do you realise that you're reinforcing the point I made?
The fact is, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Creating a binary also destroys modularisation; so what?
The amalgamation is just a means to am end: incorporating some third party library, but from source code rather than binary. However the original source would be unwieldy so it's packed into one file.
As for the reasons to use source rather than binary here, there could be several. Ask also why JVM files are distributed rather than native code.
If somebody wants to work on SQLite source code, the original sources are available. But most people don't!
(For me it's a highly useful test file.)