On Mar 7, 2009, at 7:14 PM, David Reiss wrote:
Why is it such a hassle? Why can't you build it with whatever
build environment you want?
I'm not saying this to be challenging or to flame you, but have you
tried it? I think that if you had you'd understand what a hassle it is.
I eventually gave up, because I could run the compiler on a Mac.
Michael Greene wrote:
David Reiss <[email protected]> wrote:
Right now, we can't do Windows because it's *impossible* for our
code
to run on that architecture due to lack of libraries. Any other
language that runs well on a lot of platforms (Java, Ruby,
Python...)
would be fine if our only goal is cross-platform capabilities.
I don't understand. Haven't people already built the compiler on
Windows?
Yes, people have already built the compiler on Windows. It's my
primary development platform. However, it is a huge hassle. Both of
the building options require some form of POSIX emulation for the
build environment (whether Cygwin or MinGW) and getting the
dependencies right to prevent this environment being required in the
resulting executable is a bit of magic. Each time I get the
toolchain
setup on a new Windows system I always screw something up in the
process, and half the time end up leaving the Cygwin dependency out
of
convenience, since most of the time I only need to generate code and
don't need to distribute the artifacts. It's comparable to the
compiler requiring Wine to build in *NIX environments, and
practically
requiring Wine to run in *NIX environments.
Garrett, I have also been toying with Python generation. I'd
appreciate a ping if you get to any substantial milestone or even a
plateau with code.
Michael
Best regards,
Rush
