> I'm still surprised at the results of the poll.

If the goal is idiot-proof installation, then I'm not surprised at all.  I
am new to cygwin, but cygwin has been one problem after another to me (a
mostly Windows user).

-----Original Message-----
From: dave / thomases.com [mailto:dave / thomases.com]On Behalf Of Dave
Thomas
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 7:47 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: [ruby-talk:26412] Re: The results are in...


"Mark Hahn" <mchahn / facelink.com> writes:

> I think you accidently answered a question I posted earlier today.  Am I
too
> interpret this thread as saying that a Ruby compiled in Cygwin cannot load
a
> DLL compiled from MSVC?
>
> When I heard that Ruby could load either a .so or a .DLL I assumed the .so
> was from cygwin and the .DLL was from MSVC (or compatible).  This is
wrong?

It cannot load .dll's directly, although there is a technology that
lets you wrap .DLLs into .so's

I'm still surprised at the results of the poll.


Dave