From: "W. Kent Starr" <elderburn@...>
Date: 2001-11-01T05:19:53+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24030] Re: New RubyGarden Poll: Windows support

Ralph Mason wrote:
> 
> Speaking from my experience, anyone that is going to be able to, and is
> willing to work with ruby, or it's extensions on Windows *will* be
> predominately using VC++ for their day to day work.
> 

We work on an open source project designed to be cross platform for
Windows, Linux and Mac. We use C++ because of out chosen GUI framework,
wxWindows.

One of our developers uses Borland to compile on Windows. He has access
to VC++, doesn't like it. He uses (of course) GCC on Linux. Personally,
I use MingW on Windows, and GCC on Linux. The similarity of the two
makes life easier for my easily confused mind. I also have had/used
VC++, didn't like it (too big, too bloated, too heavy) and installed it. 

Our code, to the degree we don't muck up the source, compiles and runs
very nicely, thank you, in Linux and Windows (we are still looking for a
regular Mac developer.) 

My point here is that developers -should- have freedom of choice where
such alternatives do exist. 

> The other tool chains (free) work on windows, but do not really compare to
> VC for the debugging and IDE etc, I keep them around to compile linux stuff,
> but anything I want to work on I generally convert to VC.  This gives a big
> startup overhead.

Granted, with the proviso that the degree this is required varies with
the complexity and scope of any given project. Also, "debugging" in the
traditional sense is progressively losing ground to a "failed test
first" methodology, so this is becoming less of an issue.

 
> I don't think cost is an issue, window is a user pays world.  I think you
> can get copies of the intro or standard version for around $50.
> 

Well, it could or could not be an issue. If a free tool does the job, it
should not be arbitrarily "legislated out" in favor of a vastly more
expensive (in multiple ways) tool. 


> Ruby on windows is never free - you have to pay for 1 the machine, 2 the OS
> and if you want to develop the you also pay for VC. So I it's not 'free'
> anyway.

Granted on item #1. With OS's, there _is_ freedom of choice. With regard
to tools utilized within a given OS, there should also be freedom of
choice IMO. 
 
> > > Is it REALLY that important to have a free option under Windows ?

It is important to maintain the FREEdom option, even under Windows.

Regards,

Kent Starr
elderburn@mindspring.com