Re: Baby X is bor nagain

On 03/07/2024 14:41, DFS wrote:

On 7/3/2024 5:36 AM, bart wrote:

On 03/07/2024 08:08, David Brown wrote:

On 03/07/2024 02:23, bart wrote:

On 03/07/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>

On 02/07/2024 16:00, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>

On 01/07/2024 13:09, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>

Using products like tcc doesn't mean never using gcc. (Especially on Linux
where you will have it installed anyway.)

The parenthetical remark is wrong.

>
You mean it is possible for a Linux installation to not have gcc
preinstalled?

I mean that saying "on Linux ... you will have it installed anyway" is
wrong.
>

Sure, although in the dozen or two versions I've come across, it
always has been.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "version".  Every version (in the sense
of release number) of a source-only Linux distribution will have gcc
installed, but is that all you mean?  Source-only distributions are rare
and not widely used.

>
No I mean binary distributions (unless the install process silently
compiled from source; I've no idea).

>
Which ones?
>

>
I really, really don't remember. I've tinkered with Linux every so often for 20, maybe 25 years. You used to be able to order a job-lot of CDs with different versions. Few did much.
>
Then there were various ones I tried under Virtual Box. All had gcc.
>
I must have tried half a dozen, maybe more, on RPis. Those I know all had gcc too.  So did a laptop or two with Linux. As does WSL now.
>
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here.
>
I will admit that it might not be 100% certain that a Linux OS on a system on which someone is planning to run a C compiler will have gcc installed, although that is not my experience.
>
Will that do?

>
In my experience, Linux distributions (which is a much more correct term than your "versions") rarely install gcc by default, unless they are source-based distributions.  But virtually all will have gcc available for easy installation from their repositories.  And they will pull it in automatically if the user installs something that requires it to run, or to install (such as some kinds of drivers that need to be matched to the kernel being used).
>
So perhaps instead of insisting, incorrectly, that gcc is almost always installed on Linux, you could just say that gcc is almost always easily available, and move on.  (And perhaps it is so easily installed that you did so without noticing it on your systems.)

>
I've never had to install gcc on any distribution of Linux. That's not to say it was already installed, but if I ever had to use it, it was there.
>
Maybe on very early versions, where I struggled to get it to do anything at all (like support a display) I didn't get around to using a C compiler.
>
But I did exactly that on all Linuxes installed on Virtual Box, or that was on that notebook I had, or all the ones I tried across my two RPis, plus the WSLs I've used.
>
That's enough of a track record for even one person that one can say, Linux pretty much always comes with gcc. And if it doesn't, it's easy to install as you say.

  distrowatch.com shows most distros come with gcc preinstalled.
 I think Windows should come with various development tools and programs preinstalled and ready to go: tcc, python, VS Code, SQLite.
 

I think it already does if using WSL, presumably because (1) people expect it under Linux; (2) only developers are going to use it anyway.
Windows itself is primarily a consumer product not a DIY OS as Linux comes across.
Although I wouldn't mind if some of those were available; they would take up an insignificant amount of space compared to the rest of Windows. And would open interesting possibilities, such as supplying some programs as source code.
It also needs a better built-in scripting language than 'BAT' scripts.