Sean O'halpin wrote:
> On 7/18/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs / gmail.com> wrote:
>> The One-Click Ruby Installer for Windows is at a cross-roads. The C++
>> compiler situation on Windows has become a complete mess because of subtle
>> incompatibilities and has, consequently, become a big headache for me and
>> extension writers.
>>
>> I need to decide whether future versions of the One-Click Installer are
>> built with MinGW or MS VC2005 Express (both compilers are free). My bias has
>> been to go with VC2005 on the theory that the MS compiler will always be the
>> most compatible with Windows, itself.
>>
> Having used MS C since before it became Visual I can certainly attest
> to it being a strong compiler. However, over the past few years it
> seems as if MS has gone out of its way to alienate long term users of
> their programming products. And it's not just the incompatibilities
> introduced in VS.NET - look at what's happened to VB, OLE and MFC.
> 
MS needs to evolve also, do you expect MS to continue to enhance MS-DOS.
It can't sit still while the competition passes it by and the fanatics 
complain about security.

You can't bitch about MS and then bitch because they try to make it 
better.


> People spent 10 years becoming expert in these technologies just to
> see them thrown away.
> 
> My experience is that you cannot write code using an MS platform and
> expect it to be even compilable 5 years later. This is one of the main
> reasons why I have switched to Open Source wherever possible - I have
> code I wrote 20 years ago written in K&R C that still compiles and
> works but anything I wrote in the 90s is a complete write-off.
>

You aren't making any sense. MS is a very ANSI standard compiler, so if 
you "truly" wrote it to be K&R it should work.


> As for the toolchain - while it may seem alien to people who have only
> ever programmed with MS products, it really isn't that hard to get
> your head around. More and more people are developing in a mixed
> environment - e.g. coding on Windows workstations and deploying on
> Linux servers. To have one set of tools and commands to remember makes
> a lot of sense.
>

It make a lot of sense to those who have used it before.
It you are new to Ruby and need to compile it for the first and then 
have to go thru the problem of setting up a toolchain, MinGW, etc...this 
becomes a huge turnoff for using Ruby.

Windows products should use Windows compiler...VC++.


> As for MS products being more compatible with Windows - if you've ever
> come across the problem of trying to compile across different versions
> of MSCVRT*.DLL you'll find that hard to swallow.
>
I haven't experienced, but I have heard of others who have.

> Personally I'm not interested in the slightest in making Ruby more
> friendly to Windows but I am interested in making Windows more
> friendly to Ruby.
> 

They you should leave this thread...we are trying to find a way to make 
both sides happy and bring more users and developers to the Ruby 
corner...Linux and Windows.


> Nearly all the good stuff we enjoy in Ruby on Windows comes from its
> *nix background - using MinGW makes it a heck of a lot easier to
> compile all those libs.
> 
This has NOTHING to do with which compiler to use for Windows.
Windows is Windows, not *nix!
You are just a Windows hater and your comments don't hold any weight 
here.

> I say go for MinGW - it will still be here in 5 years time and it
> narrows the gap between the Windows and *nix development environments.
> 
But it widens the gap on Windows and the evolution of Windows.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.