On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:48:27 +0200 Alex Rønne Petersen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't agree. I wouldn't want to ask my users of an > > application/tool to have to install MinGW or Cygwin. Preferably the > > shouldn't have to install anything. That basically means native > > code. > > This is a script for use by developers, not by end users. Can you > honestly develop on Windows without MinGW/Cygwin? I wouldn't even > bother with the platform if it wasn't for those two. >
I'm primarily on Windows, and personally I'm pretty much sold on the idea of using "GNU for Win" and MinGW, etc. In fact, I do use the Win ports of many GNU cmdline tools, and feel like I couldn't live without them. And though I don't currently use MinGW/MSYS, I've been meaning to give them another try. But the problem is, Windows developers like me are rare. Most windows developers, sad as it is, are more or less afraid of the command line in the first place, and stick to GUIs. When they need to do cmd line (the ones who even know how), they'll pop into cmd.exe, run their command, and then go back to Visual Studio. The really hardcore Windows devs may even use Powershell. But the only ones who would even *think* to install MinGW/etc, let alone be willing to bother, are the ones who already have some Unixy leanings anyway. I'm with Jacob, D's the way to go. Along with perhaps a trivial no-frills batch file (and sh version, of course) just in case someone needs to bootstrap it for whatever reason. Although, personally, I would wait for the new std.process, as the current one has some rather painful limitations. _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
