Re: extconf.rb spitting out SH Makefile on windows?

> Over the past 5 years I've been actively working with Ruby for Windows
> and 4 years since I took over One-Click Installer, *many* have
> proposed make Ruby agnostic of the toolchain used to build extensions.
>
> But the truth is that nobody decided to do it, everybody complains and
> is a hard task.
>
> We are talking about changing an utterly non-OOP unstructured and
> commentless tool named 'mkmf'.
>
> Is a daunting task, specially since pretty much all extensions base on
> that tool to compile and introduce something like Pythons' distutil
> could introduce many many regressions.
>
> Instead of that, I decided to focus my efforts in reduce the
> complications while sticking to only one toolchain.

Which is fine, but I was asked what I thought should be changed.  It
isn't easy, and I'm not willing to put forth the effort, not when I can
just use other tools.  I love Ruby as a language, but when it starts
getting between me and the solution, I stop using it.


> What you call "defacto" standard is what you want be your standard.
> Visual Studio Express not only complicates the compilation nature of
> Ruby and it's dependencies but also can't be automated to the point we
> use to deliver RubyInstaller.

I call it de facto because most shops that develop for Windows are going
to be using MS tools to do so. I called your response shitty because you
act as if it's just as likely that a windows developer using C will be
familiar with the gcc toolchain as they will with the MS toolchain,
which is absolutely not true.  Yes, there are other languages out there,
but they are not under discussion, C is.  That's also why I made my
comment about jackasses and fools.  When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
When in Windows, do as the Windows devs do.

You obviously have your reasons for doing things the way you have, but
don't act as if it's reasonable to expect a Windows developer to be
familiar with Unix tools.  That's shitty.  If you want to make the
argument that they can learn, then do so, but that isn't the argument
you made.


For the rest of your response, please read back over what I said.  I
*specifically* stated that I would not be using Ruby on Windows for
another project, and I did *not* give a call to action for anything.
Phillip Gawlowski pigeon-holed my statements into the classic OSS
strawman, and you're continuing in that vein.  You specifically asked me
what I thought was wrong, and I told you.  It is unfair for you to treat
that as a call to action when you *asked* for the input.  I've already
stated multiple times that my solution is to simply use other tools, I
don't know how much more clear I can be.  I really like Ruby, but that
fondness no longer includes Windows.



Jon, The great thing about the criticisms being mine is that I get to
choose who is included in said criticism and I can tell you
unequivocally that I included no gem authors.  If you don't stop, I'm
going to start thinking you dislike the gem authors.


> * as a Windows developer, what specifically are your "must haves" and
> "like to haves" for mri ruby on windows?
> * what specifically keeps you from running mri ruby in a "production"
> environment?
> * would your issues be the same from your user's (non-developers) pov?
>

I am not a Windows developer, I have more experience with Unix, and I
prefer Unix.  I'm simply a developer who is flexible enough to
comfortably develop in both environments.

There are no must haves and nothing is preventing me from running it in
a production environment.  I haven't claimed either, so I'm confused as
to why you would assume that was the case.  I stated I wouldn't use Ruby
on Windows in the future, I never stated it was unusable for me now.
Not all of that is directly related to this particular discussion, but
Ruby in Windows is subpar.  This is not an isolated opinion.

As for my users, I solved most of the issues by using an MSI installer.
It feels like Windows to them, they're happy, and I get paid.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.