Why is it such a hassle? Why can't you build it with whatever build environment you want?
Michael Greene wrote: > David Reiss <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Right now, we can't do Windows because it's *impossible* for our code >>> to run on that architecture due to lack of libraries. Any other >>> language that runs well on a lot of platforms (Java, Ruby, Python...) >>> would be fine if our only goal is cross-platform capabilities. >> I don't understand. Haven't people already built the compiler on >> Windows? >> > > Yes, people have already built the compiler on Windows. It's my > primary development platform. However, it is a huge hassle. Both of > the building options require some form of POSIX emulation for the > build environment (whether Cygwin or MinGW) and getting the > dependencies right to prevent this environment being required in the > resulting executable is a bit of magic. Each time I get the toolchain > setup on a new Windows system I always screw something up in the > process, and half the time end up leaving the Cygwin dependency out of > convenience, since most of the time I only need to generate code and > don't need to distribute the artifacts. It's comparable to the > compiler requiring Wine to build in *NIX environments, and practically > requiring Wine to run in *NIX environments. > > Garrett, I have also been toying with Python generation. I'd > appreciate a ping if you get to any substantial milestone or even a > plateau with code. > > Michael
