From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2001-11-01T03:51:06+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24007] Re: New RubyGarden Poll: Windows support

Eli Green wrote:
> As you came very close to pointing out, people are not used to having to
> compile things for their Windows platforms -- they're used to binary
> installers. This is all very good and well, but this puts the onus on module
> builders to get their modules compiled for Windows and to provide the binary
> packages.

The ability to "compile things" may be part of an application that
end-users aren't even aware of. I'm working on a simulation language
based on Ruby which compiles formulas on-the-fly and loads them into the
running application. I don't want to require that users go out and buy
VC just to run my program. Of course, if linkage between MinGW and VC
turns out to be painless, then it won't matter (as far as this app is
concerned) what was used to compile Ruby.

--
Joel VanderWerf                          California PATH, UC Berkeley
mailto:vjoel@path.berkeley.edu                     Ph. (510) 231-9446
http://www.path.berkeley.edu                       FAX (510) 231-9512