From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-10-05T15:29:26+09:00
Subject: Re: cygwin's Ruby

2007/10/5, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net>:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
> > Hm, cygwin is also a convenient crutch: installing and updating is
> > pretty easy.  No hassle with compiling etc.
> >
> > Frankly, I had expected a bit more technical detail on deficiencies that
> > would discount cygwin's Ruby.
>
> The last time I checked, the Cygwin Ruby was slightly faster than the
> One-Click Ruby on the same machine on one benchmark -- my
> MatrixBenchmark. However, I'm pretty sure that was back in the Ruby
> 1.8.5 days -- I haven't messed with *any* Windows Ruby recently, mostly
> because booting my laptop into Windows takes forever. :(

Which still leaves me waiting for more flesh to the "why not use
cygwin" suggestion...

> > I don't do GUI programming with Ruby and cygwin's Ruby has served me
> > well so far.  I also did not notice significant performance hits (but
> > then again, I didn't really benchmark different Ruby versions - I just
> > always found it fast enough).  So far I'm more concerned with
> > performance on a Sun box where the Ruby install seems to crawl... :-)
>
> By "Ruby install" do you mean the process of installing Ruby?

Nope.  I meant the Ruby installed on that box. Note: I am not
convinced that Ruby is the culprit, I rather tend to believe that it's
the Sparc processor. :-)

Kind regards

robert