Microsoft's days as a 'primary' desktop operating system are numbered. The OP doesn't seem to understand this, but even Microsoft itself does, which is why most of its major moves the past few years haven't been improving its own desktop, but positioning itself to control "open source" the best it can. More people within the MS ecosystem should understand this.
Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
41–50 of 349 posts
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly it. Windows developers know NTFS has Symbolic Links https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/creati...
What's the standard for being an "actual Windows user"? Asking because I doubt e.g. my mom knows that NTFS has symlinks.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administrati...
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are very few things that actually require Visual Studio just to build.
Interesting, how can I install just the cmake + msvc to do command line builds with windows? I'm also installing wsl2 + mingw because it is so much lighter for compilation than many, many gigabytes of vis studio.
[0] https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/downloads/#build-tools-fo...
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#44For me SDK sizes are showstopper. Mingw packages are probably 100-200 Mb total. To build anything native one has to install Windows (20+Gb in modern version and then Visual Studio 40+Gb). Not so easy to fit it all on an SSD drive. Xcode also have this problem now. 8Gb for Xcode 7 is manageable. But why 70Gb for Xcode 11?
* Windows: 61 MiB
* Linux (x86): 49 MiB
* macOS (x86): 42 MiB
* macOS (arm): 38 MiB
Zig provides almost everything that is needed to cross compile to those same targets out of the box, including libc and some system libraries. Except macOS frameworks and some updated DirectX headers/libraries (provides MinGW ones), which we bundle and ship separately: * Windows: 7 MiB (updated D3D12 headers & libs)
* MacOS: 112 MiB (almost all frameworks provided by XCode, for x86+arm+iOS)
* Linux (x86): 22 MiB (x11/wayland headers & libs)
* Linux (arm): 15 MiB
That's full cross compilation of WebGPU GUI applications to all desktop platforms in under ~217 MiB for most platforms.Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#45It is. I generate the Windows executables for a program by cross-compiling Rust on Linux. Then test with Wine. The Rust crates are cross-platform enough that I don't have to special case platforms. This is easier than having a Windows machine. The only current headache is that there's no pure Rust bundler, to make ".msi" or ".msix" installer files. If you dump the legacy OS stuff, it gets easier.
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#46For me SDK sizes are showstopper. Mingw packages are probably 100-200 Mb total. To build anything native one has to install Windows (20+Gb in modern version and then Visual Studio 40+Gb). Not so easy to fit it all on an SSD drive. Xcode also have this problem now. 8Gb for Xcode 7 is manageable. But why 70Gb for Xcode 11?
A 1tb M.2 drive is what... £70? If that's out of reach im not sure how you're powering your dev machine.
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#47> Are derived community works, like say the D-language, Dart, or Zig bindings to the win32 API which are generated from those files open source - if Microsoft did not release them as such? Certainly. The source for these bindings is the WinMD file, which is MIT licensed. While it is true that its contents are generated wholly from non-FOSS sources, it doesn't impact end users of the metadata. Microsoft owns the origi…
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To build anything native one has to install Windows (20+Gb in modern version and then Visual Studio 40+Gb). Not so easy to fit it all on an SSD drive. Maybe a decade ago, but SSDs are so much cheaper per GB nowadays. Around $0.11/GB. Pretty sure that's cheaper than the first 1TB HDD I've owned.
Not when you are on Macbook. Don't suggest external drives please ;)
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#49This what is called in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy "All or Nothing Thinking." Microsoft is a for-profit company. It is pro open-source when it helps them and closed source also when it helps them. I like the new Microsoft which has open sourced a lot of stuff. It's way better than the old closed source regime.
Sorry for my rant, I had to get it off my chest.
Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively
#50For me SDK sizes are showstopper. Mingw packages are probably 100-200 Mb total. To build anything native one has to install Windows (20+Gb in modern version and then Visual Studio 40+Gb). Not so easy to fit it all on an SSD drive. Xcode also have this problem now. 8Gb for Xcode 7 is manageable. But why 70Gb for Xcode 11?
Many of the high level categories, like Web Development,contain features you'll probably never use. If you're concerned about file size you can do a custom install to get a very lean install.
That being said, I would still recommend a Windows VM be allocated a 120Gb drive.