Python MSVC++ binaries considered evil

[Cliff Wells]

On 22 Jan 2002 15:57:18 -0800
J.Jacob wrote:

> 
> Unfortunately this is not true when you have a Windows operating system
and
> you have Python installed from binaries.  You will need the Microsoft
Visual
> C++ 6.0 compiler.  That compiler is expensive and has licence issues. 
Since
> most Python installations are from Windows binaries this effectively ties
> Python to Microsoft.  Maybe many developers have some Unix version
available
> but their customers will usually have Windows.  Some people have been
doing a
> great job building Python Windows binaries and installation programs and
this
> has added considerably to the popularity of Python.  However, if you are
going
> to write software for them your C extensions need to talk to the Windows
> binaries.
> 
> Is there another solution?  With the Cygwin package you can compile
Python for
> Windows but this makes you depending on Cygwin, and your customers will
> probably have to install Cygwin.  The MingW gcc compiler for Windows
looks
> good but i have not been able to compile Python with it and i have not
seen
> anybody else doing it successfully without losing much Windows modules. 
Do we
> need a brand new C compiler?  Will Microsoft make it impossible for that
> compiler to have COM / DLL / VB / etc.  interfaces?

AFAIK, it is also possible to use the free* Borland C++ compiler (FreeBCC).
 This is the same compiler found in Borland's commercial products, but
without the IDE.  There is even a free* debugger that can also be
downloaded.

http://www.borland.com/bcppbuilder/freecompiler/

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that the Python developers haven't
switched.  IMHO, this would make it somewhat simpler for Windows users to
compile extensions, build from CVS, etc.

*If Oleg is reading this, when I say "free", I mean "free", not "free"!

-- 
Cliff Wells
Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 x308
(800) 735-0555 x308