Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

I want to develope large scale applications, and for this I need an
stable official version of the python language, either binary or produced directly out of official sources, completely with an open-source tool-chain.

Where does that requirement come from? If you want to create large scale apps, the price for a msvc++ compiler shouldn't matter. And: Windows is a non-free platform at first. If you have to or want to develop on top of it, be prepared to pay. Its as simple as that. If you want something cheaper - you'll have to put some effort into it. Or use linux.

I will not go into this 'twisting' games.

the requirement "Use of an open-source tool-chain" is nothing special.

Additionally, your point is moot because there is no need for python
_core_ developers or the foundation to support every imaginable
platform/compiler combination.

MinGW is not "every imaginable platform/compliler".

Instead this can be done by companies - see activestate. So if you
want it, step up and do it yourself so your work _becomes_ the
official mingw port. Community gratitude would be guaranteed.

I'm not intrested in creating an distribution.

I provide an analysis of the situation, context: newcomer, disapointed from JAVA.

One of my questions is:

[REQUOTE]
c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
python source code base?

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
[/REQUOTE]

.

--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Reply via email to