"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: >> I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip, >> winrar, and even winzip. >> >> I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems >> programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver. >> Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and >> they install 7zip/winrar/etc. > > Because it's annoying. > > The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching > the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is > a virus, etc., is annoying.
If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed. Christ, even the "least-common-denominator" piracy scene has standardized on rar which has *exactly* the same accessibility level as 7z. (All the major rar programs on windows already support 7z, and on unix, getting 7z is a one-liner, no harder than getting rar: On debian-based: "sudo apt-get install p7zip-full" - *if* it isn't already installed by default, which it often is.) I'm normally one of the biggest fans of "don't exclude anyone", but what the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be built into Windows? Seriously, who *doesn't* have at the very least WinRAR, or something akin to it? I'm personally ok with DMD coming in zip, but zip's alleged ubiquity is just not a valid reason.
