From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2006-07-19T06:55:29+09:00
Subject: Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005?

------=_Part_51480_13118363.1153259726049
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Seems to me the only benefit to VC is that it might somehow produce better
code, for some vague interpretation of "better." At least until it gets
replaced by the next version and we all have to recompile.

On 7/18/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/18/06, Tanner Burson <tanner.burson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think this is a fairly valid point though, and plays a point in this
> > discussion.  Which of the two compiler tool chains, (as that is as much
> > what
> > we're talking about as compilers themselves) will make it easiest for
> > extension and library providers to get binary installs on windows?  My
> > feeling is that MinGW will make it easier for people that already
> provide
> > extensions/libs on *nix to provide the same in Windows.  The tool chain
> is
> > the same or at least close enough to keep people sane.
> >
> > Any compiler is an inconvenience to Windows users, so I think the real
> > decision lies with those that are providing extensions.
>
>
> You've nailed it here. The end users (Windows developers) want binaries
> and
> don't want to fool with source. The real issue is making things easy for
> those of us that provide the binaries.
>
> Curt
>
>

------=_Part_51480_13118363.1153259726049--