First, let me say that I am all for the commercial use of Ruby, but I believe we should have a MinGW distribution.

MinGW links directly to the Win32 libraries, so there is no "layer" like in Cygwin.  The point is to have the  "standard distribution" for Ruby on Win32 compiled with open-source/free (MinGW) tools (gcc, make, etc).

Its not like we are saying that you cannot download the source to Ruby and build it using MSVC, but that the hosted "binary" distribution would be MinGW.

There should be documentation on how to build extensions using MSVC for the MinGW (binary) distribution (and this is something that needs to be done).  I think those with MSVC should be able to compile and build extensions that work with the MinGW build, but people should be able to use MinGW tools as well.

Someone with more experience with compilers under Win32 needs to weigh in here.  I think that Scintilla is compiled with MinGW (is that right?), but I can link to the DLL with MSVC, VB, etc.

-Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curt Hibbs [mailto:curt / hibbs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:31 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:23896] Re: New RubyGarden Poll: Windows support
> 
> 
> What would MinGW buy us over straight MSVC? Since MinGW 
> ultimately uses the
> MSVC runtime, doesn't this just mean an extrat layer of overhead? Plus we
> would be limited to whatever api support MinGW happenned to pass through.
> 
> Curt
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Pryce [mailto:nat.pryce / b13media.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:23 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:23891] Re: New RubyGarden Poll: Windows support
> 
> 
> Please! Don't vote for what you think will win.  Vote for what 
> you actually
> want or what you think is the best option.
> 
> The MinGW and MSVC options should have the same effect.  That is, they
> should be compatible at the source and binary level.  MinGW lets 
> gcc use the
> MSVC C runtime library and calling conventions.  However, in my 
> experience,
> MSVC usually has support for new Microsoft APIs months before any other
> compilers, so it is important to be able to build Ruby extensions 
> with MSVC
> even if the main interpreter is built with MinGW.
> 
> However, although I voted for MSVC, my vote was not counted by the poll!
> 
> Cheers,
>             Nat.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Armstrong" <matt+dated+1007079423.bfe4aa / lickey.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>; <undisclosed-recipients: ;>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:35 AM
> Subject: [ruby-talk:23884] Re: New RubyGarden Poll: Windows support
> 
> 
> > Dave Thomas <Dave / PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:
> >
> > > In order to settle the Windows question once and for all (or at least
> > > for the next 4 months), the new RubyGarden polls asks
> > >
> > >
> > >      Ruby under Windows should be:
> > >
> > >          A native MSVC application
> > >          Built using MinGW
> > >          Build using Cygwin
> > >
> > > Vote now at 
http://www.rubygarden.org/pollBooth.php?op=results&pollID=8
>
> What are the practical differences between a MSVC app and a MinGW app?
> The end result is similar, correct?
>
> I would have voted for "anything but cygwin" were it there.  Instead I
> took MinGW since it is looking to most convincingly beat the cygwin
> option.  :-)
>
>
> --
> matt
>