On Monday 19 April 2004 10:03 pm, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Moore, Paul wrote:
I don't know if anyone has stats on how many of the 3rd party extension authors who currently provide Windows binaries have access to MSVC7, and so can make the switch. It may be "all of them". I don't have MSVC7, although I do have MSVC6 (my company, or at least my group, never upgraded) but I've no idea how unusual my situation is. A heads-up on c.l.p would probably be worth it, but it's also likely to generate a huge amount of FUD, and anti- Microsoft rants.
Given that the Python release is still several months ahead, I'd advise against such a posting. Personally, I don't know a single VC6 user who doesn't also have a copy of VC.NET 2003 available (except for you, whom I only know via email :-)
Add me to the set of VC6 users who don't have VC.NET 2003 (basically because the Windows I run is still Win98 -- as I can run it under Linux with cheap win4lin -- and VC.NET doesn't support that old Win version). Still, I suspect my particular reason is rare -- and from this thread, if I understand it correctly, I gather that if you do run Win/XP, as most do these days of course, it doesn't cost extra money to get a compiler able to build Python extensions.
In any case, the only possible change out of this discussion is that Python 2.4 would be built with VC6. I personally know a few people which have VC.NET 2003, but not VC6, because you cannot purchase the latter one, anymore. So, standardizing on .NET 2003 is a good thing: it means that .NET (2002) gets
Yes, if VC6 cannot be purchased then it would be too backwards-looking for Python 2.4 to require it from extension-authors. Presumably, for a Python release coming out in 2004, the fact that you cannot build extensions if the only Windows version you run is win98 is acceptable (sigh). Alex