From: Nat Pryce <nat.pryce@...13media.com>
Date: 2001-10-05T09:17:05+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:22108] Re: The Windows question still remains...

Isn't MingGW both binary and source compatible with VC++?  If that is the
case, I would advocate MinGW, because VC++ users could use that compiler if
they have paid for it.  Those who have not can use GCC.

I have learnt from painful experience that that non-Microsoft compilers lag
behind VC++ when it comes to supporting Windows APIs.  If Ruby depends on an
environment or compiler that is not compatible with VC++ it will never be
able to support the latest Windows APIs until several months after they are
released.  However, if Ruby uses MingGW, it will be able to use extensions
compiled with VC++, even if GCC/MinGW cannot compile those extensions
itself.\

Cheers,
            Nat.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Hicks" <bobhicks@nospam.adelphia.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>; <undisclosed-recipients: ;>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 12:39 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:22107] The Windows question still remains...


> VC++
>
> Cygwin
>
> MinGW
>
> I would go against VC++ just because of the cost. Which really leaves
> Cygwin and MinGW as contenders. Which one is better? Not only for
> Windows but for Ruby.
>
> Bob
>  ><>
>
>