Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/27/09 1:23 PM: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:21:06AM -0800, Nathan Kurz wrote: >> More generally, it might be nice to make such goals explicit somewhere. > > Yes, for example as Parrot has done with "Target Platforms" at. > <http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/pdd/pdd01_overview.html>. > >> Optimized for: 64-bit systems using GCC and supporting mmap would >> probably be my vote. > > +1.
+1 > >> Making MSVC a first class citizen would be fine if you think the return is >> there. > > No, as far as I'm concerned MSVC is a compatibility target. > > I think it's important for our users to provide wide portability, and that > means supporting MSVC. E.g. I want somebody's platform-portable wiki project > or MVC framework to be able to integrate Lucy without hesitation. > > However, Microsoft needs to work a lot harder to make my life easier as an > open source C developer if they want first-class status. FWIW, we make Win32 DLLs and .exe available for each Swish-e release by cross-compiling with mingw32 on debian-based systems (I do it on ubuntu): http://swishewiki.org/sw/index.php/Win32#Cross-compiling_for_Windows_on_Debian_or_Ubuntu We maintain appropriate macro checks in the source code and separate makefiles etc. The download-and-use attraction for Windows users is huge, since that's the expectation that community holds. I personally have no love for the MSVC stuff, and like Marvin says, M$ needs to work harder if they want me to write free code. Swish3 (for example) has no explicit Win32 support and I don't intend to write any, though I'd be happy to include it if someone contributed it. That said, I'm happy to support Marvin's desire for MSVC a compatibility target (esp since I haven't had to write any relevant code! ;) ). -- Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [email protected]
