Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
http://www.cygwin.com/
thank you.
as far as I know, the created executables are bounded to the GPL.
Thus this is not intresting to me.
Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of Python that does what you want.
I'm not intrested in patching.
I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original implementors.
And the core developers [...]
please let them speak for themselves.
This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].
You cannot run all Java programs on an open source compiler, so I guess it's an imperfect world for you. And to get GCJ to run on MinGW you have to add a lot of patches.
Python is from its nature open-source.
The requirement "open-source-tool-chain" fits naturally.
Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.
[you should really avoid this tenor.
And you should avoid yours. Your sense of entitlement is palpable.
Entitlements result out of reason.
I'm just pointing out.
I've stated simple questions [which are still unanswered]
And I've stated rationales.
Python is not an open-source project of a few teenies. It's a serious programming-language, which could be adopted by e.g. more phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]
The idea that MinGW support would affect that is laughable.
The idea that the Python Foundation cares about user needs would affect that.
The idea that the Python Foundation manages to serve (out of one source-code-base) many platforms/compilers with binaries, due to an automated, community-supported build system.
This would affect that.
.
-- http://lazaridis.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
