"Albert L. Wagner" wrote:
> 
> > I disagree somewhat. I think it is more important that Ruby have
> > a platform-specific version for Windows, for stability. Like PHP does.
> 
> You talk like a windows only user, more concerned with stability
> on your chosen platform than with cross-platform compatability.
> 

In fact, I only use Ruby on Linux. I consider it almost unusable on windows.

> > Scripts will have to be made to take into account whether they are
> > run on windows or not (but then, they have to anyway).
> 
> I currently develope on both windows at work and linux at home.
> My source, from either platform, runs on either platform.  The
> only discrepancies I have encountered are with GUI differences,
> not Ruby.
>

Windows is a GUI OS. There are significant differences/gaps in
functionality for certain non-GUI areas that perhaps your scripts do 
not make use of...
 
> >
> > I think ruby should be delivered from the cygwin womb and learn to
> > stand on its own on the windows platform. You might hear a brief outcry,
> > but that should be considered normal ;-)
> 
> The outcry will be loud and more than brief.  This remark seems
> somewhat insensitive.
>

A baby when delivered needs to give that cry to survive the new environment.
Being sensitive in one area sometimes requires being 'insensitive' in another
area. But in the big picture, I think it is important. I am modeling my opinion
based on the history of PHP. 
Ruby can be cross platform on the various forms of unix, but when it comes
to Windows or Mac in relation to the Commercial World, stability is more
important than imagined portability. This is of course my opinion, but look
at how successful PHP is. It is perhaps the most cross-platform web scripting
language, yet it does not achieve that via a single binary. It has windows-specific
approaches. I think this can be successful for Ruby, also.


Guy N. Hurst