Curt Hibbs wrote:
> This is the whole point of this thread. It appears that the only safe 
> thing
> is that the Ruby runtime and all extensions that its uses (both those
> included with the one-click installer and those provided by third 
> parties)
> need to be using the same compiler and that compiler needs to be freely
> available.
> 
> I have two choices VS2005 Express and MinGW. What I really want to know 
> (as
> succinctly as possible) is what the pros and cons are for each path.
> 
> Curt

What we're really talking about is building all kinds of unix-derived 
tools on Windows. Ruby, OpenSSL, IConv, ZLib - all the common things on 
a POSIX-based system. If Ruby and all third-party extensions need to be 
build using the same compiler, then we're talking about industry 
standardization for porting to Windows. That in itself in a large 
barrier. So, any unix-derived tool running on Windows may need to be 
recompiled to work smoothly with any other.

So my question is which represents the lowest barrier to entry for 
extension developers? If MinGW install & usage can be made simple for 
the mouse-addicted Windows user, then MinGW it is (see Charlie's post 
about getting MinGW to actually work). Until then, I suspect there will 
be a lot of justification for VC.

I vote for MinGW for the following reasons.

* It's more compatible with the standard unix build tools and processes.
* Making a working MinGW system is something a handful of folks could 
put together and pass along to everyone interested in making Ruby 
extensions. This is much less work than each extension developer 
figuring out how to recompile the third-party libs (i.e. MySQL).
* It seems to run faster, which helps when demoing to 
Pointy-Haired-Bosses in Microsoft-centric shops.

I surprised myself, beause I have VC and have no clue how to use MinGW 
(I'll have to google for it just to find the web page!).

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