Re: [Chicken-hackers] let the Windows binary go bye-bye

[John Cowan]

Brandon J. Van Every scripsit:

> Well, Chicken has the users that it has.  They're the people to ask.  

My point is that the people on chicken-users have *already* survived
installation.  What we need to know is, "If your platform is Windows and
you want to use a Scheme implementation, and there is no binary package,
would that put you off?"

By analogy, I'd be put off a Unix (using that term generically) package
if I found it didn't even have a makefile.  If it has a makefile but no
autotools (or equivalent), I'd cope -- I don't mind making minor whacks
to makefiles or even source code -- but many people wouldn't bother.
If it had those things but no binary package (RPM, .deb, or BSD port),
anyone who knew how to do the Five-Part Dance would be able to install
it, but people who only know how to install binary packages wouldn't even
look at it.  Of course, it's not a requirement that the same person who
provides the source also does the binary package (Chicken is available
from Debian as a package, e.g.)

The audience for Chicken consists of developers, and my feeling FWIW is
that developers should belong to the group that can do source installs.
But that may only show that I'm not a Windows developer.  So IMHO the
Right Thing is to go where Windows developers hang out, and ask *them* the
question.  We don't need to assume a knowledge of Chicken or even Scheme.

-- 
They tried to pierce your heart                 John Cowan
with a Morgul-knife that remains in the         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
wound.  If they had succeeded, you would
become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord.         --Gandalf