From: ara.t.howard@... Date: 2006-07-22T01:05:14+09:00 Subject: Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 7/21/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: >> > 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. >> >> wow. that's strange - i've worked on hp-ux, vax, solaris, sunos, and linux >> over the last 8 years and have found, without exception, that gcc produces >> the >> fastest code. additionally, the compiler is much (read that __MUCH__) more >> standards compiant. just getting variardic c functions working across >> those >> platforms was a chore - unless one uses gcc/glib... > > I won't use gcc on any platform where it isn't the native compiler. > Period. GCC binaries are horridly slow and unstable on HP-UX, despite > the disaster that is aCC. GCC binaries are unusable on AIX, despite > the mess called xlC. GCC binaries are painfully slow compared to Sun > Studio built binaries. ok austin, i believe your experience. however you, of all people, should be able to show us numbers with ruby extensions and/or ruby itself. the only numbers posted thus far show the opposite. my experience, porting a 90,000 line c project to linux/nix/vax was that the only possible way to do so, in this specific case, was to to use gcc. code that crashes quickly being of very little use to us. mind you, it was crappy code, but we're talking about opening up ruby to third party libs where, for better or worse, these is indeed reams of crappy c code. this is a real issue. -a -- suffering increases your inner strength. also, the wishing for suffering makes the suffering disappear. - h.h. the 14th dali lama