Re: Will 1.8.6 remain compiled with VC6?

I know this not the right place to post this, but I'll start here
because readers of this thread are most likely to be interested...

I'm looking for someone to take over the One-Click Ruby Installer
project. I haven't done any Ruby programming for more than 1.5 years,
and I don't that changing for at least another year. This means that I
don't have the time or up-to-date skills to be effective.

For example, I am working on an updated release for 1.8.6p110 but its
taking far too long because I don't have much time to spend on it and
when I run into problems, I no longer have the ready skills to solve
it quickly enough.

I can help out whoever takes over for the foreseeable future, I just
shouldn't be the one in charge anymore. If anyone is interested,
please let me know.

Curt

On 9/30/07, Luis Lavena <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 9/30/07, Austin Ziegler <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I don't actually agree here. Curt goes with the VC 6 build because it's
> > easier than trying to work with the overall environment himself and
> > previous incompatibilities.
> >
>
> That was my point.
>
> Nobu already have the environment in place. I was trying to recreate
> it and took me some time get everything build / fixed for VC8.
>
> Use the official build reduce the pain, and making the official build
> goes for the VC8 is something outside the power of Curt, and remains
> close to the Ruby-Core developers
>
> > I've looked for a solution from the people who could give a useful one,
> > and gotten bupkis.
> >
>
> If you're talking about MS... they found a workaround: recreate ruby
> in the shape of IronRuby.
>
> > What I just said about OpenSSL or zlib or pdcurses applies trebly for
> > Nobu or NaHi (or whomever it is that provides the base builds).
> > VC8-built Ruby will NOT safely run with any DLL that is built on VC6 or
> > MinGW. You must have all DLLs in your chain built with the same runtime
> > for safest execution.
> >
>
> That was my point... often think my english isn't good and people get
> lost on my answer... you prove it.
>
> > Performance. 32-bit code runs a bit slower on x86-64 and Win64 than on
> > Win32.
>
> Sometimes maintainability is the best solution versus Performance.
>
> As I said, just for the record, there is some work on x64-pc-mingw64
> version of MinGW...
>
> > Right. But the amount of overhead to support to get VC8 working is
> > insane. I tried it, remember?
> >
>
> Insane? Could be, getting every dependency build right under VC8 took
> me a lot of time, but is doable.
>
> Getting it build right under MinGW was easier.
>
> > > BTW, wasn't you who migrated to OSX? :-P
> >
> > Yeah. I've never been happier than when I no longer had to deal with
> > Windows at home. I still work with it at work every day, though.
> >
>
> Refresh my memory: wasn't the Ruby bundled with OSX broken? Most of
> the post I see on the web states manually compile Ruby and the
> extensions for OSX... to get a dev. environment right.
>
> Anyway, the thing is: what will be best for other ruby
> developers/users? Creating extensions for Ruby are simple if both Ruby
> and the extensions could be built with a compiler available today.
>
> --
> Luis Lavena
> Multimedia systems
> -
> Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
> which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
> is worthwhile.
> Vince Lombardi
>
>