From: Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@...>
Date: 2006-03-05T20:15:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Best tools for compiling Ruby (Windows)?

My mistake -- Wilson  is correct, it VC++ 2005 that you should avoid.

Sorry for any confusion,
Curt

On 3/4/06, Rich A. <usrlocalinfo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Curt Hibbs wrote:
> > Don't use VC++ 2003. Austin Zeigler, and experienced Rubyist, has been
> > struggling to get Ruby to compile with VC++ 2003 and, as far as I
> > know, he has not yet succeeded.
> >
> > You should have no problem with either VC++ 6.0 SP5, or VC++ 7.1 (aka
> > VS.NET 2001).
> >
> > Curt
>
> I think there is some confusion regarding VC++ versions and hope this
> table is helpful:
>
> VC++ 6.0 = IMHO, not very standards-compliant with C++ language
> VC++ 2002 (7.0) = IMHO, buggy & beta-quality release
> VC++ 2003 (7.1) = IMHO, very nice! freely downloadable as VC++ 2003
> Toolkit 1.01
> VC++ 2005 (8.0) = IMHO, bloated with new proprietary features
>
> IMHO, VC++ 2003 is the best C++ compiler from Microsoft because it is
> very standards-compliant and reliable compared to prior versions.
>
> Microsoft VC++ Toolkit 2003 1.01 is freely downloadable and is the same
> optimizing compiler as MS VC++ 2003 PROFESSIONAL.  The compiler version
> displayed by cl.exe is 13.10.3077.  However, the lack of debug libraries
> make it useful only for creating release builds (which is the same
> quality as the very expensive optimizing compiler).
>
> Is Austin running into problems compiling Ruby for debug build or
> release build?
>
> If Ruby builds with VC++ 6.0 but doesn't build with VC++ 2003 for
> release build, then the Ruby code should be investigated.
>
> But if Austin is building for debug, then he needs to obtain the debug
> libraries which are not included with VC++ 2003 Toolkit.  Note that VC++
> 2003 Standard has those missing debug libraries.
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>