From: James Herdman <james.herdman@...>
Date: 2009-06-17T02:53:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby feasibility?

--001636163d198f53fe046c7adb75
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've found it to be a little awkward, and sometimes downright frustrating.
An excellent example of this is Thor. AMAZING Ruby app. It kicks the pants
off of Rake. Early versions had issues with traversing directory structures
though (I've since sent in patches to fix this). Sometimes its the authors
of the libraries forgetting that Windows exists, other times it's Windows
failure to include developer tools (e.g. a C compiler) by default. The fact
that Ruby reports win32, mingw and a few other values for RUBY_PLATFORM on
Windows is equally annoying.
But yes, it's getting better.

James

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:

> James Herdman wrote:
>
>> Greetings.
>> Your requirement for Windows, alone, basically discounts Ruby. I use Ruby
>> on
>> a Windows PC at work and it's the very opposite of fun.
>>
>
>
> I've done Ruby hacking on assorted Windows boxen for years.  No problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James Britt
>
> www.jamesbritt.com           - Playing with Better Toys
> www.ruby-doc.org             - Ruby Help & Documentation
> www.rubystuff.com            - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
> www.neurogami.com            - Smart application development
>
>

--001636163d198f53fe046c7adb75--