From: Xiangrong Fang <xrfang@...>
Date: 2004-07-31T12:04:01+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] AllInOneRuby

Hi,

Just by browsing the AIOR home page... I think it is NOT simpler OR more
complicate than EXERB. They are 2 different application. AIOR as said,
is only "Ruby", i.e., it makes the *COMPLETE* Ruby environment in one
file, but your script is NOT included in this file. On the contrary,
EXERB makes your application a single EXE, but it is NOT a complete ruby
installation.

-- 
Xiangrong Fang <xrfang@hotmail.com>


On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:28:59 +0900
James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@neurogami.com> wrote:

> Lothar Scholz wrote:
> 
> > 
> > EV> [... ] At least, it's simpler...
> > 
> > Simpler ? I don't think so. Not for the creation side because you
> > still have to specify the files you want. And also not for the user
> > side where more things can happen (out of disk space, wrong env
> > variables, no access rights).
> > 
> > But it has one real advantage. In systems where you need to start a
> > few scripts maybe with 'popen("ruby.exe")' from the the main script,
> > the disk overhead will be much much less.
> > 
> > But to be honest, in such cases i prefer an "setup.exe" file. In fact
> > i don't think that the 'my friends want only one exe file' argument is
> > is really important. The difference between a generated *.exe and a
> > setup.exe is not so big.
> 
> I can see certain advantages to the AIOR approach.  One is 
> psychological.  Sys admins or IT mangers may be less hostile to a single 
> (albeit relatively large) application file than to a cluster of 
> directories and files.  Aside from taking less disk space, it "looks" 
> smaller.  Hey, it's just one file.
> 
> 
> Anyways, thanks Erik for helping me understand this better, and for 
> making it available.
> 
> I've only played a bit with exerb, so I don't know that I could make a 
> meaningful comparison.    But AIOR looks quite interesting.
> 
> 
> james
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>