Scott David Daniels schreef: > I musunderstood you. I thought you were advocating that Python itself > be built on gcc, obviating many compiler access issues. That wouldn't > work because gcc cannot, by itself (as I understand it) get to all the > nooks and crannies a windows developer may need to traverse. I know I > just repeated my argument here against a strawman, but that was really > for other readers, not for you.
I'm not actively advocating it since I realize I don't know enough about all the pros and cons, but yes, I would like for Python and other open source projects to use gcc even on Windows. It gives me an uneasy feeling when you can't use the source (apart from just reading it) of open source projects without depending on the whims of a third party. As an example, look what happened to the Linux kernel and Bitkeeper. One might argue that Microsoft is not really a third party since the whole Windows platform is made by them, but the problems are the same: as far as I understand, Visual Studio Express 2003 is no longer available, and the 2005 version is not binary compatible. In my case, I'm even unable to uninstall any modern Microsoft compiler since AFAICT they all require XP SP2 and I'm stuck with SP1 on my laptop since SP2 conflicts with the touchpad driver resulting in Windows blocking on booting, but that only effects me (I hope) and is something for a whole other rant. -- If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton Roel Schroeven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
