Probably you are right in that a visual installer would be nice to have for Windows people. So why don't you create one? After all, this is open source and since you're the one who's screaming for one the most loudly this is the perfect way for you to contribute to the community.

That would be an excellent idea. I'll get to that in a second...

BD: MSVS as in Visual Studio? And does the configure script produce an nmake compatible makefile? That'd be way kewl.

If someone wanted to be able to run UNIX-makefiles on Windows, you'd have toconsider that library names are different, and you'd have to ignore the CXX family of variables in favor of the system's own. I can't immedeately think of anything else someone might want to do, except maybe change around certain tools, del for rm, for example...

Weel, you have to account for the fact that people who use windows aren't used to having to do much themselves.... They just put the CD in the drive, and the virus copies itself... I mean, the setup starts.

I have to agree completely with korval about makefiles. They were the worst pile of junk that anyone saw until someone invented some s*t that is even worse - configure scripts. As with all s*t, it lives in symbiosis. makefiles and configure scripts are great examples. But if this was not horrible enough, now we can find .bat, .sh, .pl, .<younameit> junk all over the place, meaning we will not just have to solve many library dependencies, we now also have to figure out how to compile our programs.

GNU has the old goal of keeping everything as portable as possible. This is a sick goal. It is thanks to choices like these we have IPv4, FTP, CVS, POP3, QWERTY and all other archane technologies that would never had stood a chance if they were to compete with Real solutions to the problems. This is why competition is good. Everyone produces crap, even the open community (just look at linux), but hopefully someone will manage to not make something that is not all that shitty as everything else. This is also why Microsoft should go down because their crap surpasses the TTL by eons.

Keeping support for MSVC is a lame excuse for keeping makefiles. Anyone foolish enough to use proprietary solutions when there are free, better ones deserve problems. As for a proper build-tool, I have specs ready for a good solution (although heavily biased towards HLDL) meant for my Usix project. Anyone up for the job can tell me

EndOfBash

[Edit: SSH -> CVS]

heh. My code almost never supports MSVC so thats a moot point. I usually code in GNUC. Not actual C.
I use a free compiler, that does what I need it too, and then some, a free IDE, and makefiles. What more could I ask for? Nothin.

Since your project only contains one file, it's not bad at all.

If you had lots of files, then a Makefile could help you by only recompiling the bits you change. This would be a lot faster. Of course you have to write the Makefile first, and header files are a nightmare to deal with.

Temp files? Mine saves the .o files and only recompiles a source file if it's more recent that the object file ...

I'm well aware of that (since I use makefiles to do it ); it's Bobby's way that doesn't ...

You are deluded. It recompiles everything, every time. The temp files are not reused (and I would have expected GCC to delete them after running).

oh ya, stupid in a non-insulting way. what intelligence does that statement give you. just because i have trouble with those annoying things doesnt make me stupid. i can almost guarantee that most people that are programming have had trouble with make files atleast once in their life.