Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Python recompile
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:46:03 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <vqn8gr$1far1$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <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>
 <871pv861ht.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250308192940.00001351@yahoo.com>
 <vqi1ge$8jg8$1@dont-email.me> <vqmgjv$3a2il$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqn4dn$1eb9s$1@dont-email.me> <qgFzP.383713$eNx6.200898@fx14.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:46:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9635635bb0016846ff25eba6099b82f1";
	logging-data="1551201"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JYnTQp0zAixYaY9c1er8K"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N3x+2L2BjeO8j1+RnubCn4bjTzw=
In-Reply-To: <qgFzP.383713$eNx6.200898@fx14.iad>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3512

On 10/03/2025 17:25, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 10/03/2025 10:58, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think nobody does. There's always been some sort of mystique
>>>> surrounding 'gcc' on Windows.
>>>>
>>>> 'MinGW' supposedly 'Minimalist Gnu on Windows'. In that case I wouldn't
>>>> like to see the full-scale one..
>>>
>>> "Minimalist" is not about size of the compiler.  Rather, it is
>>> about possible support routines.  For "hosted implementation" C
>>> mandates presence of C library and there is a lot of functions
>>> not in C standard, but included in libraries of C compilers.
>>> There is also question of operating system support, complicated
>>> by fact that Windows is different than other systems.  Cygwin
>>> solved those issues by offering Posix emulation and a sizable
>>> collection os libraries.  MinGW is minimalist in the sense
>>> that it provides very little own libraries and mainly uses
>>> what is provide by Windows.
>>
>> I still don't get this stuff.
> 
> Sure you do.  You just like to complain.


No, I don't. I really have no idea about 'MingW' other than it's a term 
that gets thrown around whenever gcc on Windows comes up.

> 
>>
>> I get the impression that a port of gcc to Windows is not simply about
>> building C programs, but building C programs that use a lot of features
>>from Linux.
> 
> C was written for Unix.

So what was <name any other language> written for?


> A large amount of existing C requires
> unix semantics.   It would be pointless to port gcc to windows without
> supporting the vast majority of existing C code.

It's a language. It's not supposed to be tied to an OS. (Even though 
it's hard to prise Unix and C apart on that platform.)

Is it not conceivable that people might want to use a lower level 
language on Windows for applications that have nothing to do with Unix?

Or do you believe Windows programmers should use Visual Basic or C#?