From: Shan-leung Maverick WOO Date: 2001-10-05T09:21:51+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:22110] Re: The Windows question still remains... Robert Hicks wrote: > I would go against VC++ just because of the cost. Which really leaves This cost argument is not very convincing. I am sure you know taking the VC++ path is free for people using Ruby to develop and one only needs VC++ if one wants to develop Ruby and/or write extensions. I guess these two groups of people are quite different in size. Now that we limit the people concerned to those that develop Ruby, I would further suggest that most such people actually have VC++ anyway... Indeed, VC++ is not free. But we use VC++ on Win32 because we need to get the job done. Integration is the key. And that's also why I would not use Borland to respond to a cost argument. Yes, BCC5.5 is free, but it still lacks the degree of integration that some people need---and that integration is precisely the reason they have to develop their extensions on Win32. If there is an intention to make Ruby shines on Windows, then it has to be VC++ given the current software development landscape (unfortunately). Now whether we need to make Ruby/Windows shines or not is perhaps another issue. I think it's good, but may not worth the effort _right now_. Just my 2 cents. -- All the best, Maverick Woo