On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 11:40:01AM +0900, Michael Kreuzer wrote:
> I wrote on this newsgroup last weekend about how I was considering using
> Ruby as a scripting language.  I thought I'd post the results of that
> consideration here.  Though these are my opinions only they may be of more
> general interest as an example of why people may not chose Ruby.  (To take
> the suspense out of it, I didn't).
[...]
> (1) Lua, Python and Scheme got 1 point each for being freely useable, the
> others got 0 points for their GNU licences.

Last I checked, Perl is dual-licensed under both the GPL and the
Artistic License (which is much more liberal) -- so it doesn't pose a
restriction.

> (2) Javascript (in the form of Spider monkey) and Python compiled straight
> out of the box for 1 point each, Lua could be made to compile with a lot of
> work & the others remained inscrutable. Their Unix support I'm sure is fine,
> but their Windows work is perfunctory.  Zero for all of those.

Why do you need to _compile_ on Win98? If you want to install Ruby on
Win98, try this binary distro:

    http://www.rubycentral.com/downloads/ruby-install.html

(I haven't tried it, I'm a UNIX person myself -- but thanks Andy and Dave!)

Also, it's interesting that the features of the language itself don't
factor into your decision making process at all. Personally, that's
one of the first things I'd look at, as well as the standard library,
the quality of the available documentation, and runtime performance
(depending on the requirements of the project I'm considering).

Cheers,

Neil

-- 
Neil Conway <neilconway / home.com>
Get my GnuPG key from: http://klamath.dyndns.org/mykey.asc
Encrypted mail welcomed

It should be first patch, not first post.
        -- Alan Cox