From: Tanner Burson Date: 2006-07-19T03:37:15+09:00 Subject: Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? ------=_Part_51332_24738630.1153247831595 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 7/18/06, Francis Cianfrocca wrote: > > unknown wrote: > > >>>regarding ruby stuff being 'easy' to install i'd say that opening up > the > world > of editing source and compiling it will certainly bring in patches and > contributions - and those may be steps towards making ruby extensions > easier > to install be they binary or not. > <<< > > This point was made upthread and is entirely valid. I'm not proposing > that people stop working with extensions in source code. But as Ruby > applications become more successful and acquire credibility for > production use, the lack of really seamless binary support in a range of > environments (including Windows flavors) becomes a barrier to adoption. > In a sense, I'm talking about enabling a community of users that today > have some good reasons to avoid Ruby. > > You are right, though, this is orthogonal to the VC-MinGW choice and > belongs on its own thread. I think this is a fairly valid point though, and plays a point in this discussion. Which of the two compiler tool chains, (as that is as much what we're talking about as compilers themselves) will make it easiest for extension and library providers to get binary installs on windows? My feeling is that MinGW will make it easier for people that already provide extensions/libs on *nix to provide the same in Windows. The tool chain is the same or at least close enough to keep people sane. Any compiler is an inconvenience to Windows users, so I think the real decision lies with those that are providing extensions. -- ===Tanner Burson=== tanner.burson@gmail.com http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day... ------=_Part_51332_24738630.1153247831595--