Robert Greayer wrote:
It helps, I believe, if you stop thinking of MinGW with MSYS as 'a
pseudo-Unix system'. They're billed as the minimal toolset required
on windows to use the GNU compilers and build system (and, as
everybody knows, Gnu's not Unix). The great thing about these
compilers
2009/12/9 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
I see. So you're saying that while Cygwin is a Unix emulator, MinGW is just
a set of Unix-style tools which run natively on Windows?
Yes, in a nutshell MinGW executables are native. Executables in Cygwin
may or may not have dependencies on
From: Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com
John Lato wrote:
The only workable approach is to have users specify the
locations of these files, which unfortunately requires more
sophistication than can be expected of most Windows users (and even
some Windows developers).
Well, I
To reply to an earlier point of Andrew's (I can't find the quote now,
sorry), one of the biggest difficulties developers face on Windows is
the lack of common install locations/practices. Windows software is
usually distributed as a binary, which may or may not include header
files. These files
To reply to an earlier point of Andrew's (I can't find the quote
now, sorry), one of the biggest difficulties developers face
on Windows is the lack of common install locations/practices.
Windows software is usually distributed as a binary, which may
or may not include header files. These
Jeffrey Scofield wrote:
I think the real cultural difference is that you aren't a user, you're
a prospective Haskell developer, as others have said. Developers
pretty much have to install tools (like compilers and preprocessors)
and have to work with source code.
And I have no problem with
John Lato wrote:
To reply to an earlier point of Andrew's (I can't find the quote now,
sorry), one of the biggest difficulties developers face on Windows is
the lack of common install locations/practices. Windows software is
usually distributed as a binary, which may or may not include header
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Well, I don't know. It's going to vary from package to package, but most
things that have a semi-official Windows version either come as a
Windows Installer package (which, one presumes records where it put
everything *somewhere* in the Windows registry)
Is that done
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.comwrote:
And I have no problem with needing to install a Haskell compiler. If I had
to install a seperate C compiler to make FFI to C work, that wouldn't seem
unreasonable either. (As it happens, GHC has a C backend, so
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
In other words, Windows needs to become just like Unix. Not going
to happen.
I have the use of a dual-boot MacOS/Vista laptop.
Subsystem for Unix-based applications is a Microsoft download.
It means I can compile C programs using 'cc' or
Robert Greayer wrote:
It helps, I believe, if you stop thinking of MinGW with MSYS as 'a
pseudo-Unix system'. They're billed as the minimal toolset required on
windows to use the GNU compilers and build system (and, as everybody knows,
Gnu's not Unix). The great thing about these compilers
Stephen Tetley wrote:
Hi John
Fair points - but aren't you always going to 'need' at least MinGW?
(for some degree of 'need' of course, I use it quite a bit though
prefer Cygwin, I suppose Andrew C. would care not to use either).
I guess there's a difference in culture here.
On Unix, it
Hi Andrew
2009/12/6 Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com:
On Windows, it is usual to distribute everything as compiled binaries.
(Indeed, for most commercial software, the sources simply aren't available
at all.) And users get a binary program and binary DLLs or whatever.
Developers
I guess there's a difference in culture here.
On Unix, it is usual to distribute programs as source, and build
from source.
I see more than a cultural issue here.
Suppose you write bindings to somelib-1.0.2, and release it with
somelib-1.0.2. Then, somelib-1.0.3 is released to solve a
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com writes:
I guess there's a difference in culture here.
On Unix, it is usual to distribute programs as source, and build from
source. (I guess in part because each one of the 12,657,234 different
Unix variants is slightly different, and the program
15 matches
Mail list logo
