AIM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The site comes back with a message saying ... > > "The download you requested is unavailable. If you continue to see this > message when trying to access this download, go to the "Search for a > Download" area on the Download Center home page." > > Does anyone have any other ideas of where to look?
As suggested to me by David Rushby 10 hours ago, http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=272BE09D-40BB-4 9FD-9CB0-4BFA122FA91B&displaylang=en does work. But, there's another problem -- helloworld.c compiles fine, but linking doesn't find MSVCRT.LIB -- apparently, the 2.0 .NET Framework SDK does NOT include this file for x86 (there _are_ a couple of versions under a64 and some other parallel directory, but I doubt they're good to use with an x86!-). As the already-quoted crucial URL <http://www.vrplumber.com/programming/mstoolkit/> mentions: """ # .NET Framework SDK Version 1.1 Provides the core msvcrt.lib for msvcr71.dll against which to link your extensions. This is critically important, as without it you are going to wind up linking against the wrong run-time and will see crashes whenever a core object such as a file is shared across run-time barriers. The 2.0 beta also works according to reports, and may be required to build Numpy 23.6 (whereas 23.1 seems to work without it). """ Whether the 2.0 beta also worked, the current definitive 2.0 seems NOT to work. Can anybody suggest where to get a Framework SDK 1.1., or any other legal way to get "the core msvcrt.lib for msvcr71.dll against which to link your extensions. This is critically important"...??? And, as an aside...: It's sure an interesting reflection, that impecunious or thrifty developers (ones not willing to shell out mucho $$$ to MS for a pro VS 2003) must go through such gyrations as these in order to be able to build Python extensions on Windows. I'm sure my Windows-loving colleagues in the PSF (who got several free copies of VS 2003 from Microsoft, I believe -- at the time, I had zero Windows installations and zero interest in Windows, so I didn't sign up for one) have fully considered this recurring drama, and come to the decision of sticking with VS 2003 (avoiding any free-as-in-beer compilers such as VS 2005 or mingw) with thorough and wise deliberation. The optimizer in the C compiler used to build Python in Windows *IS* impressive: just today, I ran (and posted to it.comp.macintosh) pybench on Python 2.4.3 on iBook G4 12", Macbook Pro 2.0 GHz, and Parallels Workstation VM with Win2000 on the same Macbook -- while the Macbook is 4 times as fast as the iBook, the Windows version, despite the slight overhead of running under Parallels' virtualization, is an impressive 12%+ _faster_ than the "native" MacOSX Python 2.4.3 (I'm not quite sure about how good Parallels' virtualization IS, but even if it's as impressive as a mere 3% overhead, this still means that the Windows version of Python on identical HW must be at least 15% faster than the MacOSX version, compiled with gcc). I can see the stance that such a speedup warrants using Microsoft's costly VS 2003 and imposing endless gyrations on developers trying to get it on the cheap -- being one of the latter developers, I'm inclined nevertheless to grumble, right now, of course;-)... Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
