64-bit windows version?
ndmitchell at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 10:13:50 EDT 2007
> > I'm not sure I understand this. MS tools are free to download
> > by anyone, but not redistributable. The binaries needed by
> > programs *built* by those tools are not only free to download,
> > they're free to redistribute, and they're less encumbered than
> > almost all so-called 'free software' products.
> "The binaries needed by programs built by these tools...", you're referring to
> the C runtime DLLs? Why does that matter?
> Note I said "with no dependencies" above. A Windows native port of GHC would
> require you to go to MS and download the assembler and linker separately - we
> couldn't automate that, there are click-through licenses and stuff.
I don't compile GHC on Windows, as its kind of annoying to do, and the
binaries are usually sufficient for my needs. Typically MS tools are
well packaged and even if there is a click through license, it usually
involves checking a box and clicking next. I can't believe that anyone
is going to have any difficulty installing Visual Studio express.
Compare this to Cygwin/Mingw where the packaging is frankly awful, and
makes my head hurt every time I have to install it.
I'm looking forward to having GHC built with Visual Studio, but I can
understand why its not a priority - the advantages are relatively
minimal. What I keep hoping is that Microsoft will put some serious
thought into debugging Haskell - the MS tools for debugging blow away
everything else. (I realise a start is being made in GHCi, and am
looking forward to the end results!)
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users