On 8/31/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist / gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/31/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/30/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree with this, but I wonder if there is somebody that has
> > > > succesfully compiler Ruby with VC8. I rember somebody has started this
> > > > process (Austin is it you?), but never heard of the final result.
> > >
> > > I had actually started and I did get a running Ruby. But I had to do a
> > > *lot* of extra stuff toward getting a working One-Click Installer
> > > approach.
> > >
> >
> > That's good to know, at least the result was not negative.
> >
> > > I have recently had time to install the appropriate development tools
> > > on my laptop (my old Windows laptop, not a virtual environment in my
> > > Mac, which I will be doing later), so I hope to pick this up again to
> > > help with the effort we were talking with Microsoft about.
> > >
> >
> > Please do so :-], till MS guys will not change their minds.
> >
> > I am a little puzzled by Nobu's comment:
> >
> > [quote]
> > 64-bit ruby is binary incompatible with 32-bit ruby.
> > So it isn't concerned with 32-bit One-Click Installer.
> > [/quote]
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > ./alex
>
> I think he means that since 64-bit Ruby and 32-bit Ruby are completely
> incompatible with each other, that it would not be necessary to choose
> the same solution both. Meaning that it would be ok, for example, to
> choose MinGW for 32-bit Ruby and VC++ for 64-bit Ruby.
>

Hmmm... I really don't think this would be a good decission. I see
that there will be more effort needed for supporting 64-bit Ruby, but
to completely double it doesn't seem to be the best option.

just my 2 eurocents,

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.

> I could be wrong, but that was how I read it.
>
> Curt
>
>