From: Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@...>
Date: 2006-07-20T03:05:54+09:00
Subject: Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005?

------=_Part_1119_8037042.1153332350042
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 7/19/06, Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@path.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
> > Here are a few other minor arguments for MinGW:
> > * availability: MinGW will not disappear the way VC6 did
> > * redistribution: is it allowed to redistribute VC 2005 at all? And to
> bundle
> >   it with other software? A "Ruby devel. kit" (in a similar spirit as
> Instant
> >   Rails) including MSYS+MinGW is at least conceivable -- would it be
> legally
> >   possible with VC?
>
> A small addition to Mauricio's point: if a compiler is distributed with
> ruby, then that will benefit not just developers but users of software
> that depends on C code generators such as RubyInline.
>
> (Personally, my interest is in Cgenerator and the RedShift simulation
> framework. There's no way to distribute a binary extension because the
> extension needs to be generated at run time according to the flow
> equations, guards, transitions, and other specifications provided in the
> user's ruby code.)
>
> --
>       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407


This is a very good point (both Mauricio's and yours). Its an angle that I
had not thought of and could be a major plus.

Curt

------=_Part_1119_8037042.1153332350042--