Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:59:28 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <20250311135928.00002098@yahoo.com>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
	<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$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250309114336.00006b0a@yahoo.com>
	<vqk0ro$nebg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vql2m6$uei7$4@dont-email.me>
	<vql6g9$v4bj$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqo1p4$1kln1$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqp7ln$1udrm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:59:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e200686600aa496eb012bcd6b766ca1";
	logging-data="1991986"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DXyVuOPutuRBIRWlowz7meoE28JAz/lQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jvw9v/xvoq38cFlycR65gcBN7s0=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 5121

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:43:50 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 11/03/2025 00:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:59:22 +0000, bart wrote:
> >  =20
> >> On 09/03/2025 21:54, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >> =20
> >>> And this for a package which is known to build on Windows. =20
> >>
> >> It has been known to. But as I showed it doesn't always work. =20
> >=20
> > No, you weren=E2=80=99t able to get it to work. =20
>=20
> A build process should be foolproof. You seem to be moving from
> 'Windows is rubbish' to 'the person trying to build it is an idiot'.
> What excuse will you come up with next?
>=20
> I suppose it is inconceivable that the build process is
> over-elaborate, highly error prone and over-dependent on third-party
> tools?
>=20
> The CPython build for Windows, /10 years ago/ (I guess it wouldn't
> have gotten any simpler!) involved VS, MSVC, MS Build Tools, GIT, SVN
> and a bunch of stuff I can't even remember. It still didn't work.
>=20
>   Clearly others have the skills to
> > make it work.
> >  =20
> >> But, when I eliminate the makefile nonsense, it often does work,
> >> more simply and more quickly. =20
> >=20
> > Prove it: do it with the Python build. =20
>=20
> Sure, just tell me the C files that comprise each binary, and ensure
> all .c and .h files are supplied.
>=20
> This the bit that the supplied build process makes near-impossible to
> do in a straightforward way.
>=20
> For /my/ interpreted language, ON WINDOWS (the OS you seem to think
> it incapable of building any software), it is built from source as
> follows:
>=20
> Start with these TWO files:
>=20
>    c:\demo>dir =20
>    07/03/2025  21:00           402,432 mm.exe
>    11/03/2025  11:33           865,928 qq.ma
>=20
> Compile one with the other:
>=20
>    c:\demo>mm qq =20
>    Compiling qq.m to qq.exe
>=20
> Now there are THREE files:
>=20
>    c:\demo>dir =20
>    07/03/2025  21:00           402,432 mm.exe
>    11/03/2025  11:34           567,808 qq.exe
>    11/03/2025  11:33           865,928 qq.ma
>=20
> The new one is the interpreter. Neat, yes? I doubt you can get much=20
> simpler and more effortless than this.
>=20
> However, this is me making the effort to make it so. AFAICS nobody
> over at Linux-land is trying make things simpler; they're making
> things bigger and more complicated instead by adding extra layers.
>=20
> Hint: the ability to type 'make' (one character less than 'mm qq') to=20
> start a build process involving 1000s of files, 100s of directories,
> 10s of 1000s of lines of scripts, dozens of specialist utilities,
> taking several minutes to complete, with myriad failure points, is
> NOT what I would count as simpler.
>=20
>=20
>=20

It is far more complicated than yours if all the person wants is an exe.
It is simpler than your process if the person has higher ambitions.
Like fixing bugs or adding features.

I suppose that you achieved build simplicity by means of amalgamation.
Do you provide your potential users with de-amalgamation tool, just to
giv'em a minimal chance?