On 6/2/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In summary: > - Windows support > - retargettability >Isn't PLT's Windows support as good as or better than Chicken's?
Looks that way. For the Windows build, it looks like they're Visual Studio 2005 .sln files. I don't know how disciplined the PLT guys are about keeping their .sln builds working, but it is typical in such projects for the manually maintained Windows build to fall behind the Autoconf build. CMake is a unified build system and much less likely to fall behind on any given platform, although it is possible if a platform-specific build bug happens. Also for PLT if you want VS .NET 2003, or god forbid, VS 6, you're SOL. One advantage of CMake is you don't have to care which version of MSVC you're using. I'm not sure how their MinGW or Cygwin support is either. On the other hand, PLT ships binaries and we don't. That's a big advantage to most people. Once upon a time, PLT's performance wasn't as good as Chicken's. I don't know about now. Chicken has some inherent ability to talk to C++. As far as I know, PLT doesn't. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
