Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor)

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <uit6wdhi7.fsf@wanadoo.fr>, Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 
> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

>> Making useful programs portable between operating systems
>> requires careful effort from the beginning.  If there
>> is no effort at portability put into some individual piece
>> of Open Source software, that is a problem that cannot be
>> blamed on Microsoft.
> 
> I do not blame Microsoft I was just saying that it is harder to build Open
> Source software using GCC on Windows... And that most (if not all) Open Source
> softwares are using GNU/C has the compiler and peoples use mostly GNU/Linux

I realize too much effort has already been spent discussing
the meaning of "Open Source", but to me it seems that source
described as "Open" should work with any compiler that matches
a language standard.

> systems to develop them. So as I said Windows 2000/XP is a very good platform
> these days but it is just a bit harder to have the benefit of all ongoing Open
> Source efforts.

So some popular software that happens to be Open Source today
is hard to build on Windows.  Certainly that is an attribute of
that particular software and not of Open Source.

Without checking, I will presume for the sake of discussion that
David Botton's COM software for Ada is Open Source.  Probably
it is not hard to build on Windows.  Possibly it is quite
hard to build (to the point of doing something useful) on Unix.