RE: autoconf in pure MSVC environment?

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Roger Leigh
>
> But Windows /is/ a second class citizen.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the baseline standards for software
> development are: ISO C, ISO C++, and POSIX/SUSv3.

Well, Linux isn't POSIX either.  I'd prefer to leave it to
comp.lang.c++.moderated to argue over how ISO-compliant VC7.1 is.  I'm
not interested, I'm trying to be an OCaml guy.  There's just always this
need for underlying C/C++ projects however.

> Windows /is/ the odd one out, being gratuitously
> incompatible with everyone else.

You could measure 'everyone else' in terms of number of OSes out there,
or you could measure it in terms of user base.  I think the latter
metric is fairly sane in the real world.

> This imposes a heavy burden on
> porting to Windows, so that people like myself who would like to build
> Windows-native versions of our software have not the resources to do
> so--despite supporting every other commonly available OS out there!

Why do you say *you* have to build the versions of your software?  If
you take the conspicious attitude of not caring about Windows, but you
haven't painted yourself into a corner with UNIXisms, and your project
is demonstrably useful to some community, and an aide-de-port exists,
then someone like me comes along and says "hey presto here's your MSVC
build."  Then you grouse and hem and haw about the free work someone
offered to you, how 'difficult' it would be to incorporate into your
project, how you're anti-Microsoft pro-GPL or whatever... or you just
say "Thanks!  Now I can convert more users to my cause."

Or else no volunteer emerges, because your project is too difficult to
port because of UNIXisms.  That's a non-issue.  You're happy, and you
don't care about anyone who's unhappy.

> For people like me, targeting a Cygwin or MinGW toolchain isn't not
> "being serious" about Windows support--it's the only choice.

Maybe you've got some uber-enterprise, labyrinthine complex UNIX project
that really has to keep its environment with it at all times.  But not
all open source projects are that way.  For instance, the vast majority
of open source projects I look at are game projects.  Relatively small
projects in the scheme of things.  Commercial developers create games
that are as many LOCs as anything else big and daunting out there, but
hobbyists sure don't.  And converting hobbyists *counts*.  All those
kids running around playing games, and seeking to make them, can advance
the cause of open source business models.

Please don't think only in terms of dinosaur 'big iron' development
scenarios.  You got big projects and small projects.  Small projects can
be ported.

> For many projects the entire development team uses Linux, UNIX and/or
> MacOS X.  Windows support will only be supportable if there are folks
> using Windows daily who are willing to do the grunt work, since folks
> like myself do not have the skills to debug Windows issues such as DLL
> linking problems, or even normal bugs.  Since we are not using Windows
> regularly (if at all), while we are not against a Windows port, there
> is not much we can do to make it happen either.

This is a chicken-and-egg problem.  Guys like me acutally look around
for stuff we could port to Windows.  But, the level of work required
becomes too much.  If Autoconf could target MSVC to a partial degree, it
would reduce the level of work involved.  Then more things would get
ported and hey presto, you've got a Windows volunteer on your project.
Why?  Because it was doable, and because from the Windows developer's
standpoint, your project doesn't "basically suck" anymore.

> The solution to this problem is for Microsoft to provide a full POSIX
> environment (APIs and tools) which would greatly ease both porting and
> native development.

That's pissing in the wind.  You don't ask Microsoft to embrace
standards or open source.  If you want Windows to become more of an open
source environment, you undermine it by direct action.  I don't like
Microsoft at all.  I make $8/hour at voter registration currently,
because I can't be assed to go up the C# toolchain.  I have seen the
Microsoft treadmill for what it is.  Nevertheless, the answer is not to
whine about what Microsoft 'should do' for us.  They shouldn't do a damn
thing.  They're Microsoft!  They should have been split in two by the
DOJ and even that didn't happen.  We can only hope that they destroy
themselves, with too many stacked up silly things for Longhorn and so
forth.  Maybe they will finally dig themselves into a hole of
incompetence they can't crawl out of.

'Battle Cry', as far as I'm concerned, is to cajole open source
developers into dropping the anti-Windows silliness, and just get on
with making the choice of operating system irrelevant.  Yes, it's
difficult.  No, I don't expect UNIXen to do the work.  It would be nice,
however, if they saw the merit in more universal tools that aid porting.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

When no one else sells courage, supply and demand take hold.