[#5218] Ruby Book Eng tl, ch1 question — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

13 messages 2000/10/02

[#5404] Object.foo, setters and so on — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

OK, here is what I think I know.

14 messages 2000/10/11

[#5425] Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...>

18 messages 2000/10/11
[#5427] RE: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — OZAWA -Crouton- Sakuro <crouton@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:49:46 +0900,

[#5429] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Jon Babcock <jon@...> 2000/10/11

Thanks for the input.

[#5432] Re: Ruby Book Eng. tl, 9.8.11 -- seishitsu ? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2000/10/11

At Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:53:41 +0900,

[#5516] Re: Some newbye question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "D" == Davide Marchignoli <marchign@di.unipi.it> writes:

80 messages 2000/10/13
[#5531] Re: Some newbye question — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/10/14

Hi,

[#5544] Re: Some newbye question — Davide Marchignoli <marchign@...> 2000/10/15

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5576] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/10/16

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:

[#5617] Re: local variables (nested, in-block, parameters, etc.) — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2000/10/16

Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com> wrote:

[#5705] Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>

There has been discussion on this list/group from time to time about

16 messages 2000/10/20
[#5712] Re: Dynamic languages, SWOT ? — Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@...> 2000/10/20

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:

[#5882] [RFC] Towards a new synchronisation primitive — hipster <hipster@...4all.nl>

Hello fellow rubyists,

21 messages 2000/10/26

[ruby-talk:5723] Re: InstallShield version for Ruby soon...

From: Michael Lam <wy2lam@...>
Date: 2000-10-20 23:40:02 UTC
List: ruby-talk #5723
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

>We thought long and hard about this.
>
>In the end, we decided that one of the things that's important is that
>Ruby should look like a "real" application; that is it should not be
>surprising when people install it.
>
>Folks are used to the look and feel of InstallShield, and we felt that 
>was important enough to shell out the $250 or whatever.
>
>We might well be wrong about this, but it's one of those decisions
>where it's safer to be wrong by using it than wrong by not using it.
>

Ok, point taken and agreed.  I pointed that out just because I think InnoSetup
is a very stable and popular opensource setup program for Windows only.

Actually, I have personally tried it as a developer and a user and it is easy on
both ends.  Really, the present version isn't quite distinguishable from
InstallShield on the users's perspective.  (Try installing mingw32 and you'll
know what I mean)

Considering the above, I presently can't see a lot of merit of using IS except
that it has a larger userbase.  Anyways, if you have money to smoke, it should
not matter a lot since IS is updated quite frequently too and I've heard that
the company is among the better ones in terms of support.

I personally would choose InnoSetup, but at the end, I guess it's just about
choice ;)

Mike


In This Thread