[MLton] compiler dependencies
Brandon J. Van Every
Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:58:55 -0700
Stephen Weeks wrote:
> I don't know what is needed to generate executables for Windows. If
> gcc is sufficient, then I don't see why we should use VC++ (or some
> other tool). If gcc isn't sufficient, then obviously we need
> something else.
I am surmising from your comments that your focus is very, very far away
from Windows development. I am unaware if GCC runs on Windows in some
academic sense. I can assure you that nobody in the open source
community uses it for that purpose. People are oriented towards Cygwin,
MinGW, and/or VC++. Cygwin is not synonymous with GCC. Many things
break when moving from a proper GCC to a Cygwin environment, because the
Windows-side support for UNIX-like functionality is never as good as on
UNIX proper. There may be language-specific differences too for all I
My rule of thumb is that if a project does not have a VC++ build, they
aren't serious about Windows development. Such projects typically have
zero people actually compiling, testing, and using things on Windows.
If you become interested in Windows, be advised that Cygwin has
licensing issues which make it unacceptable for most commercial use.
Its library functionality is contained in a GPL'd .dll, which if used,
would put all of one's commercial software under the GPL. I believe one
can compile without the library, but then one loses whatever that
functionality is - probably the whole UNIX environment.
MinGW is the effort to use native Windows .dlls and avoid all licensing
issues, while still providing a UNIX environment.
VC++ is of course standard industry practice.
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
- Ed Mckenzie