OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able)

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:

On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 18:15:25 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes:

On Thu, 1/2/2025 11:29 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>

Why would you expect the link step to require a lot of
memory? The linker builds an elf executable from the contents
of ELF object files, one ELF section at a time.  It doesn't
construct the entire ELF executable in memory before  writing it out.
 

>
It's based on experience, not imagination.
>
I've built Thunderbird on both Windows and Linux.
It was the Windows build that left a bad taste.
Once you repeatedly have build failures during linking,
you are always looking for it.
>

>
Ah, well windows.   You need not elaborate.
>
I've been fortunate to have never built software in a
microsoft environment (aside an optical jukebox driver
for NT3.51 once on a contract job - even then I did
all the editing on unix and just compiled and tested
on the windows box).

>
I did a Windows C++ job for a year. I still can't believe how complicated
Visual Studio (2017 IIRC) made the most basic things such as setting library
and include paths which were buried 2 or 3 levels down in some sub menu not
to mention all the "project" BS which forced a certain structure on to your
code filesystem layout which I didn't particularly want. Also the fact that
console and GUI apps require a totally different project setup and boiler plate
code from the start is just mind boggling.

They always try to make things pretty and easy to use, but you end up
with that.  I think the only way to tolerate that is to be born and
raised in such thing.  Modularization is likely the most important thing
in programming and it's hard to minimally praise Microsoft on
modularization.  For instance, is there any Windows software that
handles a TCP connection in an accept-fork-exec fashion?