Re: Python recompile

On 10/03/2025 17:25, Scott Lurndal wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 10/03/2025 10:58, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>
I think nobody does. There's always been some sort of mystique
surrounding 'gcc' on Windows.
>
'MinGW' supposedly 'Minimalist Gnu on Windows'. In that case I wouldn't
like to see the full-scale one..

>
"Minimalist" is not about size of the compiler.  Rather, it is
about possible support routines.  For "hosted implementation" C
mandates presence of C library and there is a lot of functions
not in C standard, but included in libraries of C compilers.
There is also question of operating system support, complicated
by fact that Windows is different than other systems.  Cygwin
solved those issues by offering Posix emulation and a sizable
collection os libraries.  MinGW is minimalist in the sense
that it provides very little own libraries and mainly uses
what is provide by Windows.

>
I still don't get this stuff.

 Sure you do.  You just like to complain.

No, I don't. I really have no idea about 'MingW' other than it's a term that gets thrown around whenever gcc on Windows comes up.

 

>
I get the impression that a port of gcc to Windows is not simply about
building C programs, but building C programs that use a lot of features
from Linux.

 C was written for Unix.

So what was <name any other language> written for?

A large amount of existing C requires
unix semantics.   It would be pointless to port gcc to windows without
supporting the vast majority of existing C code.

It's a language. It's not supposed to be tied to an OS. (Even though it's hard to prise Unix and C apart on that platform.)
Is it not conceivable that people might want to use a lower level language on Windows for applications that have nothing to do with Unix?
Or do you believe Windows programmers should use Visual Basic or C#?