64-bit windows version?
simonmarhaskell at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 11:21:55 EDT 2007
Neil Mitchell wrote:
>> > 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.
Not a fair comparison - I'm talking about *users* of GHC, who currently do not
have to download anything except GHC itself. With a Windows native port they'd
have to also get VS Express and the MASM package separately.
GHC *developers* wouldn't be any better off either. You'd still need either
Cygwin or MSYS for the build environment. There's no way I'm using MS build
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users