>On Aug 9, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Rousselot, Richard A ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> I could spend a few hours figuring this out and be fine but it will be >> painful for me. > >Or you can spend many hours waiting for someone to build it for you. How many >hours are you willing to wait to save yourself some pain? (And since when did >learning something new cause pain?) > I like learning as much as the next guy but I prefer to spend my time on skills I can use in the future; compiling a 64-bit binary is not a useful skill. I may wait for someone to compile and provide it to me but I am really wary of getting code from strangers these days. I tend to trust the SQLite team.
>As to your problem with corporate IT, will they let you install Cygwin? >SQLite is well-supported in Cygwin, and there is a 64-bit version of Cygwin. >Due to the way Cygwin works, all packages available for 64-bit Cygwin are also >64-bit. > I would probably have an easier time getting a Mac (impossible) than get Cygwin installed at work. :) >Cygwin SQLite should be nearly as fast as native SQLite. There are some big >speed hits in Cygwin, but for the things SQLite does, I can’t see that you’re >going to run into any of the biggest ones. > >> The last 32-bit Intel CPU was the PIII in 2004 > >That’s simply not true. Many P4s were 32-bit, the Atom processors were 32-bit >only until 2008, and I believe the Core Solo processors were also 32-bit only. > >(That latter caused a lot of trouble for me when Apple went 64-bit only and >cut off a bunch of the still-useful Macs I had still in use.) > Ok, P4 in 2008 that is still 8 years ago. (Your 32-bit Mac is not windows machine). How long do I have to wait for everyone to upgrade? So, if there is one person in the universe still using a 32-bit windows machine we all have to wait? >> no supported Windows OS requires 32-bit CPUs > >But equally, Microsoft retrenched from their threat to make Windows 10 the >first 64-bit-only version of Windows. Wonder why? :) > Microsoft keeps 32-bit compatibility for legacy applications. I don't consider and actively developed piece of software from 2016 a legacy application, do you? >> The 64-bit version will, I assume, happily work on DBs created in the 32-bit >> version. > >Yes. > >> What am I missing? > >Someone has to do it. Time is not free. > I agree, time is not free. If I compile a 64-bit SQLite3.exe that only helps me and wastes a lot of my time. I bet Dr. Hipp et al could have that thing (build scripts at least) complied in a matter of minutes and his work would be available for anyone in the world to use. Why not, on the other hand, save some time by not compiling the 32-bit version? The 64-bit version will probably shave an hour off my many 8 hour processing jobs. That will add up very quickly for me. >> Are windows command line tools 32-bit only? > >The opposite, actually: the first 64-bit versions of the Visual C++ tool set >were command-line only, as I recall. I believe that was back in the >pre-VC++2005 days. > >> Why add powerful features like CTE if you can't access their power? > >Because most of the SQLite binaries are shipped by third parties, not directly >from sqlite.org. The biggest sources are OSes (virtually all mobile phones, >Mac OS X, Windows, etc.) and third-party applications (virtually all web >browsers, many Adobe and Apple products, etc.) These third parties built >SQLite to meet their needs. > This doesn't make sense, what does a 3rd party binary based on a dll have to do with a command line tool? Are you saying that no one needs the command line tool so its development should be abandoned? >I’d bet the number of regularly run instances of binaries downloaded directly >from sqlite.org is under 0.01% of the total usage of SQLite. > >(That’s a considered guess, not a wild guess. There are billions of SQLite >instances in the world, and I’m betting there are less than 100,000 users of >the SQLite.org binaries. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s under 0.001%.) > >Of that tiny percentage, only a small fraction will actually need a 64-bit, >and of that fraction of a fraction, only a small number will be unable to >acquire or build a 64-bit binary. > >Why spend a lot of effort on such a small user base? > A 64-bit SQLite3.exe would help the whole user based of command line users. Why spend time making a 32-bit version for the minority of people still running 8 year old equipment? It's not like they can't download an older 32-bit version. This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
