Re: Python recompile

On 15/03/2025 16:53, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 13:39:39 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled:

On 15/03/2025 12:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

It doesn't, that was kind of the point. win32 can't do fork().

>
So, WTF does that have to do with the subject? I can also ask how what

 Umm, you're trying to promote your language.

No. I was responding to somebody saying how great Linux is to build software (where you have to run huge configure scripts) and how rubbish Windows was.
I gave an example of how simple building something was /on Windows/ without any support whatsoever other than a compiler.

Might be helpful if it did
something fucking useful. Or is it just a toy?

Is there any conceivable answer I can give where you're not just going to give a smart-arse reply?

You do realise its utterly trivial to create a script or even an alias under
*nix that will compile and run in one go. You declaration that being able to
do both with one command is some kind of quantum leap in functionality is
laughable.

>
OK. Try it with CPython: start with no CPython executable, just the source files. You want to be able to run hello.py with one command that will build CPython from source and run it.

 Something like this I imagine:
 alias hello="cd cpython;make;bin/python hello.py"

I guess you need to clear the existing version first or it will do nothing.

Tell me how long it took to write the script, how long it took to run,

 10 secs and no idea.

So you haven't tried it. OK, if you don't want to do so, then from your vast experience of these things, how long do you think it would take to build CPython from scratch, and would be it viable to do that each time you evoked it?
  How long does it take to build your language from

scratch?

I may have mentioned it 50 times; I doubt there's any point in a 51st time.

 

My example didn't need a script; it ran in 0.1 seconds, and generated zero files. It needed one tool, the compiler.

 So what language is your compiler written in? Does it magically just work or
does it have to be built first?
 

Yes it is a 'quantum' leap compared with how things are usually done.

 How exactly?
 

if you want an inefficient build. Most people however don't like rebuilding
from scratch everytime there's a code change in a single module, hence makefiles.

>
Here, you don't seem to understand what this is about.

 I understand that everytime I ask you something relevant your answer is
the equivalent of "Look! Squirrel!"

I understand that you keep misunderstanding everything and spouting random rubbish.
But if you want to be serious for a minute and not just a dick, I originally said this:
"C is a little different because the language doesn't allow for automatic discovery of modules. But the extra info needed is simple: a list of files."
What this means is that a C compiler must be told all the C source files that make up a program; it can't work it out for itself.
So you have to give it a list of files, but this simple requirement has blown up into over-complex and error prone build systems.
Your replies showed that you misunderstood the point.