Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
> The only real reason not to use it that I'm aware of is that it is
> fairly slow.
> Of course, the native Ruby on Win32 is 10x slower than on Linux for
> many tasks, so maybe that's not much of a selling point.
> 
> 

Really? Curt, Austin? Is native (one-click) Ruby 1.8.5 slower on, say, a
933 MHz Pentium III running Windows than, say, a gcc-compiled (O2) Ruby
on the same hardware?

Let me drag out my matrix benchmark and dual-booted (Win XP and Gentoo
Linux) Athlon XP laptop and see for myself!

Be back later, as they say in IRC!