[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Also, there are many free software programs that use special
> features of GCC and cannot be compiled using another compiler.
This is precisely what bothers me about standardizing on GCC --
lock-in is lock-in whether you must pay cash or not.
--Scott David Daniels
Roel Schroeven wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
> > * The code created by the Windows GCC is not as good as the one created
> > by the Microsoft compiler
>
> Isn't Python for other platforms built with GCC? Seems to me that if it
> GCC is good enough for other platforms, it's good enough for Win
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 t
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> 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
Roel Schroeven wrote:
> ... But what I meant was not related to interface compatibilities, but to
> the performance of the generated code: many people say that the code
> generated by gcc is not as well optimized as code generated by
> Microsoft's compilers. Yet I never hear complaints about tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bottom Line: As I said before, I don't have a problem using VC2003 or
> anything. It's by far the cheapest and easiest way just to buy VC2003
> and be done with it, than to fiddle around with GCC or anything. I just
> think that Python should use the best technology avail
Scott David Daniels schreef:
> Roel Schroeven wrote:
>> Isn't Python for other platforms built with GCC? Seems to me that if it
>> GCC is good enough for other platforms, it's good enough for Windows.
>
> You clearly misunderstand the interface to the Windows OS & GUI system.
Very well possible.
Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Isn't Python for other platforms built with GCC? Seems to me that if it
> GCC is good enough for other platforms, it's good enough for Windows.
You clearly misunderstand the interface to the Windows OS & GUI system.
Microsoft provides that interface through its language sy
Martin,
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > * In a professional environment, it opens up another can of potential
> > problems, where one would rather like to stay with one single
> > compiler/build system.
> That's a theoretic argument to me: Can you name four or five problems
> out of that can?
In bigge
robert wrote:
> hmm, yet msvcrt4 is obviously preinstalled on each Windows - and its in
> Windows Update Process. Its tagged: "4.20 - OS use only. DO NOT
> DISTRIBUTE")
> Think, in principle its possible to compile against that with
> VS2003/2005... ?
> ( think msvcrt4 is not delivered extra even
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
> * The code created by the Windows GCC is not as good as the one created
> by the Microsoft compiler
Isn't Python for other platforms built with GCC? Seems to me that if it
GCC is good enough for other platforms, it's good enough for Windows.
--
If I have been able t
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> robert wrote:
>
> codecs are in python24.dll, mscvr71, mfc71 and all are not.
> However, they are not in core - the operating system demand-pages code,
> loading into core memory only what is being used. So if you don't use
> the codecs, they are not loaded into core.
>
robert wrote:
> For me the great great problem with Python2.4's lib geometry was that
> the size of distributable app installers swelled suddenly by many megs
> with msvcr71.dll and mfc71 and codecs in core and all.
codecs are in python24.dll, mscvr71, mfc71 and all are not.
However, they are not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> thanks for the tip, I wasn't fully aware of that. OTOH, though GCC
> might be a theoretical alternative, it isn't a practical one for many
> situations:
>
> * In a professional environment, it opens up another can of potential
> problems, where one would rather like to s
Philip Austin wrote:
> Presuming I succeed in setting up vc7 correctly, is it as simple
> as 'python setup.py install' from here?
yup (for a suitable definition of "correctly"; afaik, all you need is a
couple of registry settings; for a normal VC install, the easiest way to
get them in place i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> This is the .NET 11 SDK, I belive it includes the 2003 compiler (*):
>
> Last time I checked the .NET SDK they had the C# compiler in there, but
> not the C++ optimizing 2003 compiler. Might be wrong though
I just downloaded and installed this, and see a directory
I have been using the latest VC.net to compile my SCSIPython extension
dll for Python 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 without any problems. I just have to
make shure that I link with the correct Python.lib
Sam Schulenburg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> which compiler will Python 2.5 on Windows (Intel) be built with? I
> notice that Python 2.4 apparently has been built with the VS2003
> toolkit compiler, and I read a post from Scott David Daniels [1] where
> he said that probably the VS2003 toolkit will
Op 2006-06-15, Fredrik Lundh schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how that backs the point you made. Infact, you're saying
>> that people accepted that Python 2.4 was compiled with VS2003 because
>> VC6 could not longer be bought. How is that different from the
Martin,
thanks for the tip, I wasn't fully aware of that. OTOH, though GCC
might be a theoretical alternative, it isn't a practical one for many
situations:
* In a professional environment, it opens up another can of potential
problems, where one would rather like to stay with one single
compiler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the problem is not the ABI, but the runtime libraries. From what you're
> saying, it looks like we will have to standardize on VS2003. As I said,
> we need to buy VS anyway because of the MFC support. On the other hand,
> I really worry about all those people that want to
> This is the .NET 11 SDK, I belive it includes the 2003 compiler (*):
Last time I checked the .NET SDK they had the C# compiler in there, but
not the C++ optimizing 2003 compiler. Might be wrong though
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] in
comp.lang.python:
>> As nikie pointed out, you can buy a 1-year MSDN Pro Subscription that
>> includes the VS2003 system. All that stopped is the free toolkit.
>
> The MSDN Pro Subscription is not really an option because we have no
> use for the 2005 compile
Scott,
thanks for your clear words.
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Nor was it clear to the PyDev community. Microsoft offered free
> development systems to those among the PyDev group who were core
> developers, and we took that offer. At the time we had no idea
> it was on such a short-windowed
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Jarek Zgoda wrote:
>> Sorry, gals and guys, but if you force us to buy something irrelevant
>> like VC2003, you will not get our sympathy.
> Oh, no. And just when our bank account was getting full from your
> appreciation of our efforts.
Sorry guys, I'm getting a bit
Sybren Stuvel wrote:
> Well, it's simply not true. I switched to Cygwin Python because then I
> could use gcc to compile my extensions.
and you're shipping extensions that works with a stock Python distribution ?
or are we playing the "but if we ignore the context, a literal
interpretation of y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I understand that you are far in the release cycle and that this change
> would maybe even delay the whole release process. Those are good
> points. OTOH I think that sometimes it's better to change decisions in
> light of new facts.
There is no maybe to it. You could as
Fredrik,
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure how that backs the point you made. Infact, you're saying
> > that people accepted that Python 2.4 was compiled with VS2003 because
> > VC6 could not longer be bought. How is that different from the current
> > situation wh
Scott David Daniels napisał(a):
>> Sorry, gals and guys, but if you force us to buy something irrelevant
>> like VC2003, you will not get our sympathy.
>
> Oh, no. And just when our bank account was getting full from your
> appreciation of our efforts.
Prepare to be happy, as you owe us $.9
Fredrik Lundh napisał(a):
>> Sorry, gals and guys, but if you force us to buy something irrelevant
>> like VC2003, you will not get our sympathy. How should I explain my boss
>> that we need to buy one Pro license more, just to be able to build our
>> Python app? Please, don't left us with pants d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not sure how that backs the point you made. Infact, you're saying
> that people accepted that Python 2.4 was compiled with VS2003 because
> VC6 could not longer be bought. How is that different from the current
> situation where the VS2003 toolkit cannot longer be do
Hi Fredrik,
first, thanks for PIL, I use it extensively in my daily work ;)
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> huh? 2.5 isn't released yet. if you *have* a Python app, you can
> continue to use the same compiler when you upgrade from 2.4 and 2.5.
> it's not like anyone is forcing you to uninstall the compi
Jarek Zgoda wrote:
> Sorry, gals and guys, but if you force us to buy something irrelevant
> like VC2003, you will not get our sympathy.
Oh, no. And just when our bank account was getting full from your
appreciation of our efforts.
--Scott David Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.or
Hi Scott,
thanks for keeping up the friendly discussion. Comments below.
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> The disruption in Python 2.4 in switching from one compiler (VC6) to
> another VS2003 was not insubstantial. By sticking with VS2003, sometime
> users can at least use the same tool for Python 2
Jarek Zgoda wrote:
> Sorry, gals and guys, but if you force us to buy something irrelevant
> like VC2003, you will not get our sympathy. How should I explain my boss
> that we need to buy one Pro license more, just to be able to build our
> Python app? Please, don't left us with pants down.
huh?
Scott David Daniels napisał(a):
> The disruption in Python 2.4 in switching from one compiler (VC6) to
> another VS2003 was not insubstantial. By sticking with VS2003, sometime
> users can at least use the same tool for Python 2.4 and Python 2.5. It
> does seem inevitable we will have to switch
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 08:36:21PM +0200, Jarek Zgoda wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh napisa?(a):
>
> > hint: most people who provide third-party extensions to Python support
> > more than just the latest Python version...
>
> We're happy with your support for us, Windows users, but you are an
> exception
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ... So I'd like to ask you:
> why was the decision taken a while ago (and is not subject to
> reconsideration) and what are the reasons for using VS2003? I mean
> there must be a real good reason why you're doing this, as I only see
> disadvantages in it.
The disruption
Fredrik Lundh napisał(a):
> hint: most people who provide third-party extensions to Python support
> more than just the latest Python version...
We're happy with your support for us, Windows users, but you are an
exception to the general rule of providing only sources.
That's the reason we are f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the problem is not the ABI, but the runtime libraries. From what you're
> saying, it looks like we will have to standardize on VS2003. As I said,
> we need to buy VS anyway because of the MFC support. On the other hand,
> I really worry about all those people that want t
Mr Roboto wrote:
> I haven't personally tried a Python compile w/ this, but I'll
> share it in hopes that it'll help: one can download a free copy
> of Visual C++ 2K5 *Express* from microsoft itself. If you're
> interested, try:
The problem is, when you compile an extension module with VS (Expre
Jarek Zgoda wrote:
> nikie napisa³(a):
>
> > If you want to *buy* VS 2003, you could still purchase a 1-year MSDN
> > Pro Subscription. The price difference isn't *that* big compared to a
> > single-user license of VS, and it automatically includes past VS
> > versions (everything from VC++ 6.0 and
Scott,
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > which compiler will Python 2.5 on Windows (Intel) be built with?
>
> Same as for Python 2.4 (the decision was taken a while ago).
> Intel sells a compatible compiler, I believe.
the problem is not the ABI, but t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> which compiler will Python 2.5 on Windows (Intel) be built with?
The default build will be the VC 2003 compiler as for 2.4, but there
will also be VC 2005 project support files in a PCBuild8 subdirectory,
if current efforts by CCP succeed. I am certa
nikie napisał(a):
> If you want to *buy* VS 2003, you could still purchase a 1-year MSDN
> Pro Subscription. The price difference isn't *that* big compared to a
> single-user license of VS, and it automatically includes past VS
> versions (everything from VC++ 6.0 and upwards, IIRC).
This doesn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> which compiler will Python 2.5 on Windows (Intel) be built with? I
> notice that Python 2.4 apparently has been built with the VS2003
> toolkit compiler, and I read a post from Scott David Daniels [1] where
> he said that probably the VS2003 toolkit will
Scott David Daniels napisał(a):
>> which compiler will Python 2.5 on Windows (Intel) be built with?
>
> Same as for Python 2.4 (the decision was taken a while ago).
> Intel sells a compatible compiler, I believe.
Sounds rather bad.
Anyway, there should be some kits available from second-hand at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> which compiler will Python 2.5 on Windows (Intel) be built with?
Same as for Python 2.4 (the decision was taken a while ago).
Intel sells a compatible compiler, I believe.
--
--Scott David Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/li
Hi everyone,
which compiler will Python 2.5 on Windows (Intel) be built with? I
notice that Python 2.4 apparently has been built with the VS2003
toolkit compiler, and I read a post from Scott David Daniels [1] where
he said that probably the VS2003 toolkit will be used for Python 2.5
again. Howeve
49 matches
Mail list logo
