From: M DOT Carter AT gcal DOT ac DOT uk ("M.Carter") Subject: Re: cygwin.dll 16 Jan 1997 08:50:39 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970116123433.252f4572.cygnus.gnu-win32@scooter.gcal.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mca AT scooter DOT gcal DOT ac DOT uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Original-To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com At the risk of annoying someone ... I'd like to mention that I used Visual C++ to write a simple 'hello world' program for Windows 95. It was 17k long. I found that the machine transported to another machine running Windows 95 without the need for distributing a dll, or any other paraphenalia. To my mind, this was a very clean way of doing things. Looked at from a user point of view, it is a simple, no fuss way of running a program. He installs only one executable, and he doesn't have to set a path to the dll. In my experience of using cygnus, I first installed beta 17. I then had problems configuring some GNU utils that I downloaded. It was recommended that I download 17.1, because it was a better version. Much hoo-hah followed, as I then had a naming conflict between the old dll, and the new dll. On the whole, it was a fairly frustrating experience, what with other problems that followed as well. Ben Constable wrote : >I think the good thing about the DLL is that you can update the dll without >changing heaps of executable programs. That is the idea with most DLL's. On the other hand ... the major problem with creating an executable is getting it to compile in the first place (in fact, I am often confounded as to how difficult it is to convince a program that it's not doing anything clever. Methinks there must be a better way of ensuring a standardisation of approaches so that source can be compiled without hassles. I don't that think that GNU, which emphasises the importance of portability, has the problem entirely cracked) Once that hurdle is overcome, recompiling it in future is usually a piece of cake. Can I please re-affirm the advantages of eliminating the dll : - the distribution is easier to install. Remember - the user may not be interested in the cygnus project - he just wants an executable that works - the binary is easier to execute It is better to use the standard components of an already existing operating system, rather than trying to go it alone by adding extra bits. Unless there's a compelling reason to do so, of course. I would be the first one to admit that a PC's operating system is 'less than perfect' (in fact, if there was a competition for the worst designed operating system currently on the market, the PC operating system in all it's glorious flavours [Dos, Win 3.11, Win 95] would win it), and I'm sure that 99% of the people reading this email would agree with me. Even the humble Amiga has an operating system that has more coherency to it. Windows 95 - it's not THAT bad. This email was written with the sneaking expectation that it would generate a lot of response, so I apologise if some people think that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss these matters. - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".