|
From: | Hans Zwakenberg | Ocean Consulting GmbH |
Subject: | Re: [Liberty-eiffel] Liberty-eiffel Digest, Vol 26, Issue 3 - here: reasoning for using Pelles-C on Windows |
Date: | Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:53:54 +0100 (CET) |
> > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 21:21:55 +0100 > From: Raphael Mack <address@hidden> > To: address@hidden > Subject: Re: [Liberty-eiffel] Eiffel Windows Support > Message-ID: <address@hidden> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Am Sonntag, den 06.03.2016, 19:49 +0000 schrieb Bernd Schoeller: > > On 06/03/16 19:04, Raphael Mack wrote: > > > About more concrete steps, that some into my mind: > > > The first step (after familiarization with Eiffel) in this project is > > > clearly to bootstrap the compiler on Windows with a native C compiler > > > (e. g. PellesC). > > > > May I ask why PellesC and not MinGW/MSYS? The license of PellesC does > > not seem to be GNU compatible, so I consider it dangerous to build on > > this foundation. > > This is a good point, I never checked the license, so yes, this should > definitely be one of the first things to do: choose a suitable compiler. > Somehow it seemed easy to redistribute PelleC, I think that was one of > the reasons why it came into the discussion. > @Hans: can you say more about this? > Hi Rahpa, Bernd et al,
Pelles-C is free, free as in 'free speech' AND as in 'free beer'... ;) It can be freely used for any project, commercial or not, open or closed source. Having said that, the compiler itself is a closed-source project. I'm not going to take part in a discussion about the relative merits about that. I and most Windows programmers I know - if we use 'free' tools or libraries, we like to use really free tools and libs. That's why I prefer LGPL libraries over GPL'ed libraries...
As to compiler integration: other compilers are available: CLANG/LLVM, Code::Blocks and the ones previously mentioned. Also, in the past we discussed integrating Tiny-C as well, more specifically to get faster edit-compile-test turnarounds. The idea was to use Tiny-C for development and any of the others (to be implemented) for deployment...
Using MinGW/MSYS would keep it closer to the Linux counterpart and hence reduce integration effort, but I don't know enough about it (license-wise, deployment-wise) to be able to choose/decide between them...
cheers
Hans
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |