Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 349 posts

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#81

Post by maccard »

nshm wrote: post #21

For 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?

The visual studio build tools are substantially smaller than 40GB. My IDE install is about 25GB, and visual studio has distributed the build tools separately since vs2015 - my toolchains directory is about 4GB including whatever dotnet runtimes, windows GDK.

> Not so easy to fit it all on an SSD drive.

Professionally, no excuse. As an open source or otherwise unpaid pursuit, a 250GB SSD is about $45 on Amazon right now. That more than comfortably fits your 60GB estimate, with plenty of room to spare.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#82

Post by userbinator »

akelly wrote: post #77
userbinator wrote: post #72

Only if you want to be trendchasing rather than letting backwards compatibility take care of itself... I'm a native Win32 developer, have been one for a few decades, and know quite a few others still using MSVC6 because it's fast and enough for what they do. Takes Long file paths: Azure, OpenSearch, and ~90 other open source projects have to document how to enable long file paths on Windows because the default is a ~…

It's incredibly fitting that all the links on that post are 403 Forbidden

That's Microsoft being (the new, not the old) Microsoft... they seriously fucked up the MSDN documentation when it was migrated to docs.microsoft.com, so I'm not surprised that a similar thing happened to the blogs:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20351358

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#84

Post by nicoburns »

nshm wrote: post #34
xboxnolifes wrote: post #25

Earlier 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 ;)

True historically, but this has actually been solved on the latest macs. Base spec for the MacBook Pro is 1TB disk.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#85

Post by dataflow »

hacker_homie wrote: post #83
dataflow wrote: post #71

Now try building a "portable" binary that runs on a version of Linux older than yours.

Easy static link everything. I think you meant a GUI application that runs on a version of Linux older than yours.

Statically link everything? Including glibc?

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#87

Post by downut »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #76
sumy23 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do need to develop on a Macbook. The hardware is just so much better than anything else out there. This is my personal opinion of course, but I would rather stop being a software developer than to develop software using a different laptop available on the market today.

Meanwhile I’d rather serve coffee than be a software developer on any laptop! I can’t fathom developing on anything other than a high-end desktop. M1 is very impressive. But I hate macOS as much, if not more than, you hate Windows. My Threadripper makes me very happy.

Yeah, given the sheer cpu/ram/m.2 power of what even a tiny NUC provides, with modular, replaceable monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/USB(3/C/Thunderbolt)/HDMI etc, for less than a Mac, I am unable to understand the appeal of a laptop. And I use a i7/64GB/1TB NUC for traveling! I use a twice as powerful Ryzen rack server for my office dev box. 5m extension cables so the noise is in a closet.

I have no problems with external drives. Is this a Mac thing too?

32 years ago as a fresh out I got a government job with an SGI box with an enormous monitor. I stare in wonder at the future, right now. It sure doesn't look like happiness.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#88

Post by dataflow »

rocqua wrote: post #86
dataflow wrote: post #71

Now try building a "portable" binary that runs on a version of Linux older than yours.

Isn't that simply a matter of targeting an older glibc? I am probably missing something though.

Yes, "simply". It's a very fun process. Around 100 times more fun than the onerous

  git config --global core.symlinks true

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#89

Post by LeoNatan25 »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #79
landryraccoon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don't have to develop on Macbook. So you intentionally chose a platform known for being really expensive and now your main complaint is that it's too expensive? I don't really think that the toolchain is to blame for that one.

> But you don't have to develop on Macbook Can you please tell that to my IT department which refused to issue me a Linux laptop for 1 month, then took two months to put the order in... I had to get an executive (President of R&D) at the company to harangue IT... I still haven't seen it, apparently they are trying to install the standard "employee spyware" package on it.

If your IT department is an overt detriment to your development effort, send a letter to your company’s upper management and leave. This is the only way to push for change in these moronic companies, and you keep your sanity.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#90

Post by BoorishBears »

maccard wrote: post #81
nshm wrote: post #21

For 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?

The visual studio build tools are substantially smaller than 40GB. My IDE install is about 25GB, and visual studio has distributed the build tools separately since vs2015 - my toolchains directory is about 4GB including whatever dotnet runtimes, windows GDK. > Not so easy to fit it all on an SSD drive. Professionally, no excuse. As an open source or otherwise unpaid pursuit, a 250GB SSD is about $45 on Amazon right n…

It's interesting how people assume that their world is everyone else's...

It's easy to forget that there are billions of people for whom $45 is a massive investment, and that SSD isn't so conveniently available even if they have the money.

I know I got into programming on a mix of graphing calculators and thrown out PCs, and I also distinctly remember having to work around the download sizes of tooling because I was using really crappy internet.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the poster to wish that they could build useful binaries without 60GBs of downloading and storage...

Post reply on HN