Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Python recompile
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:43:36 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <20250309114336.00006b0a@yahoo.com>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
	<vq3oag$18iv6$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq4hf2$1brf7$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq4l3d$1ck9e$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq4m0u$1ctpn$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq4n05$1d5dv$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq4om7$1dbo2$2@dont-email.me>
	<vq6dqh$1pskk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq6f8p$1pmnk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq6gqc$1qcp8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq6ips$1pmnk$2@dont-email.me>
	<vq6j5h$1qosf$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250304092827.708@kylheku.com>
	<vq7g1p$1vmg5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq94dt$2boso$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqcsk7$23bfo$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vqefn1$3flpt$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqeu5c$3imil$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqeun4$3iqbq$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqfcbe$3lkkc$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqh569$3e9d$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqhj2e$5u26$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqhp18$75es$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqhs8o$7o8n$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqjkj0$l82b$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 10:43:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e55bffe57b441613f034b54912b8864b";
	logging-data="692886"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190a63NNZs7SpCrEMOgqMUk4TvjvsrRxkw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S2yZ18F2KbZBsOj+izRSDaTF/wc=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3678

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:47:28 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:46:14 +0000
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
> >On 08/03/2025 15:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:  
> >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:09:17 +0000
> >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> gabbled:  
> >>> My idea is similar to supplying binaries, but replacing each
> >>> binary file with one C source file. This now needs a C compiler
> >>> to turn into a binary, but nothing else. No configure, no
> >>> makefiles, virtually no special options, no special compiler
> >>> needed and no special version.  
> >> 
> >> So instead of just typing "make" the user has to know how to
> >> invoke the compiler, possibly with certain switches set. Not sure
> >> how thats any better.  
> >
> >I've just typed 'make' in a Windows prompt. Nothing happens
> >('command not recognised'). That's a good start!  
> 
> I'm not particularly interested in windows development. Microsoft
> seems to have made it as complicated as possibly with its ridiculous
> overcomplicated project files. From a unix POV all I want to do if
> I'm building a package from source is to type "make" after selecting
> the correct makefile.
> 
> >So according to you, this should be a piece of piss. OK, I'll try
> >it:  
> 
> I'm not really interested in your straw men.
> 
> 

Pay attention that all this slow, complicated 'configure' business
didn't originate on Windows. It was invented in order to cover variety
of Unixen. Which (variety) no longer exists, but religious 'free
software' people like to pretend that it is still relevant and continue
to use configure. Instead of writing code that at source level is
portable between 4 operation systems and 2 CPU architectures that still
matter (or 6, if one wants portability to phones). Which (writing
mostly portable, but not c.l.c-style obsessively portable code) is
nowadays not even hard.