From: Benoit Cerrina <benoit.cerrina@...>
Date: 2001-10-04T16:46:52+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:22057] Re: Flogging a live Window


> Well I believe "most developers" covers it. I'll grant you that you can
find
> examples of the opposite. And you are quite right about the VC++ dll's.
I'm
> not saying VC and Windows dll's are always a pleseant environment - just
> that it is the environment most commonly used.

I disagree.  I'm sure I'm not the only dual booting developper who wants to
develop
on windows and linux and does not want to but VC++ because of its price.
My opinion is that its not so much a problem for companies (after all what
is the
price of VC++ license compared to the salary of a developper) but to home
users.
I don't expect most extensions to be developped by companies so I think it
is fundamental
that they can be compiled using free tools.

> > As I said earlier in the thread, what we really need to do right now is
to
>
> That's why we have this discussion.
>
> Please see my other response in thread. Main concern being linker format
and
> difficulty of obtaining and installing cygwin/gcc. And the fact that Linux
> is a good and cheap alternative.
sorry but this is not true as much as I like linux, it cannot yet compare to
windows in
many domains.  One of them being the install base.
>to those who don't have access to VC++. Also
> consider the Open Watcom alternative - if it is a such.
didn't know about it I just went to their page, will have to read more after
work

>
> I really like the concept of a free compiler to support Ruby on Windows.
But
> if we are serious about supporting Windows, we must be realistic.
The only reason it works for activeState is that its not the extension
developpers
which build and distributes the VC++ binary but a company.

Benoit