Re: Python recompile

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:43:50 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 11/03/2025 00:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:59:22 +0000, bart wrote:
 

On 09/03/2025 21:54, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
 

And this for a package which is known to build on Windows. 

>
It has been known to. But as I showed it doesn't always work. 

 
No, you weren’t able to get it to work. 

 
A build process should be foolproof. You seem to be moving from
'Windows is rubbish' to 'the person trying to build it is an idiot'.
What excuse will you come up with next?
 
I suppose it is inconceivable that the build process is
over-elaborate, highly error prone and over-dependent on third-party
tools?
 
The CPython build for Windows, /10 years ago/ (I guess it wouldn't
have gotten any simpler!) involved VS, MSVC, MS Build Tools, GIT, SVN
and a bunch of stuff I can't even remember. It still didn't work.
 
  Clearly others have the skills to

make it work.
 

But, when I eliminate the makefile nonsense, it often does work,
more simply and more quickly. 

 
Prove it: do it with the Python build. 

 
Sure, just tell me the C files that comprise each binary, and ensure
all .c and .h files are supplied.
 
This the bit that the supplied build process makes near-impossible to
do in a straightforward way.
 
For /my/ interpreted language, ON WINDOWS (the OS you seem to think
it incapable of building any software), it is built from source as
follows:
 
Start with these TWO files:
 
   c:\demo>dir 
   07/03/2025  21:00           402,432 mm.exe
   11/03/2025  11:33           865,928 qq.ma
 
Compile one with the other:
 
   c:\demo>mm qq 
   Compiling qq.m to qq.exe
 
Now there are THREE files:
 
   c:\demo>dir 
   07/03/2025  21:00           402,432 mm.exe
   11/03/2025  11:34           567,808 qq.exe
   11/03/2025  11:33           865,928 qq.ma
 
The new one is the interpreter. Neat, yes? I doubt you can get much
simpler and more effortless than this.
 
However, this is me making the effort to make it so. AFAICS nobody
over at Linux-land is trying make things simpler; they're making
things bigger and more complicated instead by adding extra layers.
 
Hint: the ability to type 'make' (one character less than 'mm qq') to
start a build process involving 1000s of files, 100s of directories,
10s of 1000s of lines of scripts, dozens of specialist utilities,
taking several minutes to complete, with myriad failure points, is
NOT what I would count as simpler.
 
 
 

It is far more complicated than yours if all the person wants is an exe.
It is simpler than your process if the person has higher ambitions.
Like fixing bugs or adding features.

I suppose that you achieved build simplicity by means of amalgamation.
Do you provide your potential users with de-amalgamation tool, just to
giv'em a minimal chance?