On Mar 20, 2:49    䱮 
>
> > 1) Install RubyInstaller. RubyGems is already bundled
> > 2) Download DevKit. Installation is a manual process for now,
> > contributions are welcome to provide a real installer.
> > 3) There is no step 3, gem install will trigger the gem compilation
> > without polluting your normal environment.
>
> Fair enough, I installed in that order based upon everything I had read,
> but I don't claim to be an authority.   > for DevKit left me with the impression that the environment had to be
> loaded up every time you wanted to use it.      > can't remember exactly where it was documented, so lets just call it a
> misunderstanding on my part.
>

Please, wiki is open, introduce your edits to make it more easy to
understand for newcomers. Let us know on our mailing list once you do
it:

http://groups.google.com/group/rubyinstaller

The page is here:

https://github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/wiki/Development-Kit

If something is not clear, we would like to correct it.

> > Dude, chill out, MS EULA forbids you to bundle Visual Studio with any
> > tool.
>
> We're talking past each other.
>
> What I meant is the Ruby installer doesn't bundle gcc or Visual Studio,
> so the idea that it's built with gcc because Visual Studio doesn't allow
> 3rd party distribution is fallacious.
>
> I could *maybe* see your point if the installer came bundled with
> everything needed to build the gems that are compiled, but it doesn't.

Not everybody needs a compiler bundled. Not every needs to install
gems or compile extensions to use Ruby, why increase installers 20MB
(GCC) or 2GB (Visual Studio + PSDK) for something you don't want?

I believe I have stated this in the wiki in relation to this and other
tools:

https://github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/wiki/FAQ#bundled_short
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyinstaller/msg/34dd829ebe0e4567

> Once you've installed Ruby on Windows, you now get to go download
> another piece of software, so it becomes a matter of choice.   
> *Microsoft* Visual C++ Express.
>

Over the past 5 years I've been actively working with Ruby for Windows
and 4 years since I took over One-Click Installer, *many* have
proposed make Ruby agnostic of the toolchain used to build extensions.

But the truth is that nobody decided to do it, everybody complains and
is a hard task.

We are talking about changing an utterly non-OOP unstructured and
commentless tool named 'mkmf'.

Is a daunting task, specially since pretty much all extensions base on
that tool to compile and introduce something like Pythons' distutil
could introduce many many regressions.

Instead of that, I decided to focus my efforts in reduce the
complications while sticking to only one toolchain.

Luckily for us Ruby is written in C, but if any of the parts of the
language was written in C++ and exported, that will be impossible to
deal with due GCC vs Visual Studio C++ different ABIs

Again, the free/xfree malloc and mismatch of CRT you already know.

Having all those drawbacks I think you will value what you can get now
compared to previous Ruby for Windows situation which was the strict
dependency on Visual C 6.0

You can search the web or read my my blog about that: http://blog.mmediasys.com/

> > Windows != Visual Studio. There are other languages beyond C or C# and
> > of course there are other compilers beyond Microsoft one.
>
> Which is another shitty response.   
> a Windows OS.         
> way that there are other compilers on Unix, but the de facto standard is
> gcc, and you can't really talk yourself past that point.
>

Again man, I believe I treated you with respect all this time. Calling
shitty to responses you don't like is plainly aggressive and idiotic.

Before Windows NT codebase there were different compilers for Windows,
not just Visual Studio, seems you can't see beyond that point either.

What you call "defacto" standard is what you want be your standard.
Visual Studio Express not only complicates the compilation nature of
Ruby and it's dependencies but also can't be automated to the point we
use to deliver RubyInstaller.

Please, I encourage you do the same thing we do with RubyInstaller
project and how we build all the dependencies with Visual Studio and
let me know.

Excluding for a second that Visual Studio express lacks advance
optimizations like PGO only found in paid version, which is a
restrictive point for someone that works with Open Source Software
want to contribute back but is not paid by it.

Heck, over the past years there has been ZERO emails from Microsoft
encouraging me use their tools, and pretty much everybody knows my
email address.

> > This is an old discussion about MinGW versus Visual Studio for Ruby
> > for Windows, and you've reach to it 3 years later.
>
> Exactly, which is why I won't bother with Ruby on Windows anymore.  > unnecessarily difficult, and the community has already decided it isn't
> important enough to change that.    
> obstacles between my clients and their solutions.
>

To change that, work is required, clearly you're not interested in
work on it. How you can get engagement from others if not even you are
committed to it?

If you want dinner served, go to a restaurant. I believe you're coming
from a different mindset in relation to development, but Open Source
works by actions, not by words. You can write down the most beautiful
haiku but is pointless if you can provide a code that solves the
problem.

> > But don't come here to criticizes the work done by others.
>
> I can, and I will.        > thicker skin.
>

You're not providing constructive criticism. Your words can't be
backed by your work, and that is how things roll in Open Source.

But again, this whole discussion is moot since clearly you've
repeatedly said don't care about Ruby for Windows, so why bother
answering?

Seems you're the one can't move forward.

>
> As for fixing it, fixing it means not asking someone on windows to learn
> the gcc toolchain just to build an extension.    > free to download, asking the user to download an MS compiler or the gcc
> compiler should be a no brainer.
>

If you consider it needs to be fixed, please, fix it and showed to us.

> Standardize on a version of the Express compilers and work with the
> rubygem maintainers to let gem authors offer different installs for
> Windows.      > just to install a ruby gem, the complexity is pushed off to the gem
> maintainers, where it should be.     
> it is, and do things the Windows way when in Windows.
>

MinGW is not Unix, is Minimalistic GNU for Windows and is GNU tools
for Windows, is not emulating anything.

It uses same libraries and similar headers than Visual Studio (ported
to GCC syntax)

> update mkfm to SUPPORT WINDOWS, and that means more than simply using
> dlltools and then spitting out a Makefile.    
> you have to.
>

If by Windows you mean Visual Studio, see the mswin32 builds from
garbagecollect:
http://www.garbagecollect.jp/ruby/mswin32/

Use that, use Visual Studio with it and be happy.

As for Ruby and RubyInstaller: Patches are welcome.

Everybody is a critic but no one is willing to put code where their
mouth is.

Show us -- with real code -- that all that we managed to achieve today
is possible with Visual Studio Express, that it can be automated and
that usage can be simplified.

And I'm willing to take the chance of doing a RubyInstaller based on
Visual Studio.

And no, is not up to me to do it, you seem very interested in state
that I'm wrong and you're right, so is up to you.

As for the RubyInside article, ego on a side, see who is being quoted
in it.

--
Luis Lavena