Re: Idle 0.10 alpha

[Thomas Lauer <thomas.lauer@...>]

Duck <duck@roaming.ath.cx> wrote:

> 3. It's Windows only, which happens to make it useless to me. (I am 
> looking for portability across  Windows, Linux and the BSDs.)

As things stand in the moment, I can't see a Linux version this side of
summer 2008. Sorry about that, but I am not a Linux developer. There are
a few people who currently use the Windows version and *may*, once I
release the source code, try their hand in porting it.

> Another thing: if I were you I'd also offer an EXE which is statically 
> linked, so you can make a single-file program (no DLL required). Where the 
> DLL is useful is if you have multiple Idle EXEs, so each EXE is much 
> smaller.

Technically, that wouldn't be too difficult. However, there are reasons,
mostly of a non-technical nature, why I have currently no plans to
release a version of the compiler that produces stand-alone EXE files.

> For these cases I suggest you also offer a non-UPXed version of the DLL. 
<snip>
> I haven't explained that very well. But UPXing a DLL which gets loaded 
> more than once means you end up with the DLL's code in memory, as 
> non-shared data, multiple times.

Yeah, I know very well what you mean. However, you can easily decompress
any UPX'd EXE or DLL by simply calling 'UPX -d <filename>'. The result
is just the plain, original DLL. But it's a good idea to include a hint
somewhere in the documentation to this effect. I may even put the
decompressed DLL on the website. Thanks for reminding me.

-- 
cheers  thomasl

web : http://thomaslauer.com/start