Re: Python recompile

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:51:17 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:

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

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.

Some linux software has huge configure scripts. Well written software doesn't
need them.

I gave an example of how simple building something was /on Windows/
without any support whatsoever other than a compiler.

Building can be made as hard or as easy as the author can be bothered to make
it regardless of the OS>

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?

Well does it do anything useful? You seem rather dismissive of including any
kind of OS API with it rendering it effectively useless except as an academic
exercise.

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.

No idea.

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

You plucked cpython out your arse and expect me to go download and build it?
Are you fucking kidding me, you think I have nothing better to do with my time?

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?

Not sure why you seem think a language could be built from scratch before
you use it. Does your compiler have to be built from scratch each time you
want to compile something with it? No, didn't think so.

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

It'll take as long as any other program written in whatever you've written
it in, presumably C.

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.

You're just moving goalposts as soon as you see something you can't answer
coming over the horizon.

"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."

You haven't even defined modules properly. Do you mean other C source files,
compiled .o files, .so files, .a files or something else?

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.

For a start a C compiler only compiles one file at a time and secondly I
wouldn't want it to try and second guess what modules I want it to build
with. I've already explained why previously. You seem to live in a simple
world of simple programs with no system specific dependencies.

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.

Only by people who don't know what they're doing.