On 7/19/06, Reggie Mr <buppcpp / yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sean O'halpin wrote:
> > 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.

Sean's making plenty of sense. His K&R code does still work. It's the
code he wrote since then using certain MS technologies that is a
complete write-off.

> > 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.

No one is suggesting that every windows user will have to compile
their own binaries. We are talking about which compiler extension
writers and the One-Click-Installer team should use. End users
shouldn't know the difference.

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

And Ruby is a Windows product???

> > 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.

Huh??? Perhaps you meant *nix instead of Windows in that first
sentence. In either case I find Sean's comments very relevent. Most of
the great extensions in Ruby as well as Ruby itself were built
originally in *nix environments. I know for me personally, people are
constantly asking me to create some Windows binaries for Ferret and
it'd be a lot easier for me if MinGW was the default compiler for Ruby
on Windows. As it is, Windows users will have to stick with the (much
slower) pure Ruby version for a little longer yet.

> > 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.

How so? Can you be more specific.

My vote is for MinGW.

Cheers,
Dave