On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 10:18, Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> James Amundson <amundson@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > (When I am done, windows builds without MinGW should be a reality...)
>
> Just curious about this one -- clisp on cygwin?
Nope. Just windows with a supported windows lisp, i.e., clisp, allegro
or gcl, once a gcl windows binary becomes available.
> We are actually quite
> close to a marked improvement of GCL on mingw.
Yes. I am waiting for it. Don't worry -- I'm not trying to avoid GCL on
mingw. I am presuming the new scheme will work with a windows GCL binary
built under MinGW, but we will have to see.
> I'm just wondering if
> you'd feel a GCL port to cygwin would be desireable (should be
> straightforward).
Well, it's completely unrelated, but cygwin is necessary for running
texmacs on Windows. People who have cygwin for texmacs might also be
interested in using cygwin for maxima. It's possible, anyway. Maxima
should work equally well under mingw and cygwin -- no porting should be
necessary. I know that GCL, by its nature, is much more
platform-sensitive than Maxima. Would porting to Cygwin require real
work?
> I've been told mingw is superior -- is there a
> reason you are looking for a windows build without it?
In many senses, using either MinGW or Cygwin on Windows is the worst of
all possible worlds -- something unsatisfactory to serious users of
windows and unix alike. It is my hope that a more "native" compilation
system for windows will attract more contributions from people expert in
windows. We *desperately* need them.
--Jim