From: stu <yakumo9275@...>
Date: 2006-07-21T20:40:11+09:00
Subject: Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005?


Lothar Scholz wrote:
> RM>  -1 for MinGW
> RM>  +1 for VC
>
> Some here
>
> -1 for MingGW
> +1 for VC
>
> VC has still a much better optimizer then gcc, if you use it with care
> about 10% faster, which today where CPU's are not getting faster as
> fast is still important.

10% is a LOT! I'd like to see these numbers that proove 10%.
I'd be sure there is a difference but 10% is ridiculous.

> MS it is keeping better capatibility. How many thousands of programms
> were brocken by the (technically unnecessary) changes from 3.3 to 3.4.

And how close to the C++ spec was vc6? it was ABYSMAL! Its better in
vc2005.

> A 77MB toolchain is extremely heavy.

It is not a 77mb download for mingw. I would also think ruby would only
need gcc-core, binutils and msys.

The VC++2005 Express is 474mb download

> Then look at the update frequency of MingW and components, i can use
> MSVC for years without problems, but the release-often/release-too-early
> sympthom of open source is a different beast.

some people are still using gcc 2.9.5. whats your point? there is no
forced upgrade requirement.

> And finally, it is always a good decision to use the compiler from the
> system vendor. Unix guys should remember this. Even if it is a totally
> strange HP PA-RISC compiler. This simply gives the best compatibility.

This is true. Suns compiler was always better than gcc and same to for
ibms power compiler vs gcc..

I'd rate gcc over msvc but under the Intel C compiler.

>
> To cut a long story short: I don't trust MinGW.
>

I smell a rat. Most of your complaints are bogus.

Doesnt microsofts license forbid redistribution of VC Express anyway?

-stu