I noticed an article on /. reporting that Microsoft is now giving away
their C++ compiler:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/
Maybe a boon to simplifying Ruby builds? At least making it available
to people who don’t have a copy of VC++.
Jim
Hello Jim,
Tuesday, April 20, 2004, 2:01:49 AM, you wrote:
I noticed an article on /. reporting that Microsoft is now giving away
their C++ compiler:
Microsoft Learn: Build skills that open doors in your career
Maybe a boon to simplifying Ruby builds? At least making it available
to people who don’t have a copy of VC++.
No. The license forbids to use it to build and distribute GPL
applications. A really interesting way Microsoft has choosen to fight
Linux and GPL.
–
Best regards,
Lothar mailto:mailinglists@scriptolutions.com
(more or less):
I noticed an article on /. reporting that Microsoft is now giving away
their C++ compiler:Microsoft Learn: Build skills that open doors in your career
Maybe a boon to simplifying Ruby builds? At least making it available
to people who don’t have a copy of VC++.
The release is only for Win2k and upwards.
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:01:49 +0900, Jim Moy web@jimmoy.com wrote
Lothar Scholz mailinglists@scriptolutions.com writes:
No. The license forbids to use it to build and distribute GPL
applications.
It does no such thing; that’s just /. FUD. What it forbids you to do is
redistribute the components if doing so would put them under the GPL, which
seems reasonable: “you can use our compiler for free, but you can’t make
our DLLs fall under the GPL by redistributing them with GPL code.”
-Mark
Hello Mark,
Tuesday, April 20, 2004, 4:14:09 AM, you wrote:
Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> writes:
No. The license forbids to use it to build and distribute GPL
applications.
It does no such thing; that's just /. FUD. What it forbids you to do is
redistribute the components if doing so would put them under the GPL, which
seems reasonable: "you can use our compiler for free, but you can't make
our DLLs fall under the GPL by redistributing them with GPL code."
So compiling against the static version of "msvcrt.lib" is okay ?
But unfortunately there are a few memory leaks when doing this,
at least _beginthread, _beginthreadEx are known to have problems in
the static version. And we must also compile all extension ".so" files
against the static lib, not really nice. So i think we still need
prebuild windows versions.
Or we use Open Watcom or/and Borland C++ for windows compilation.
--
Best regards,
Lothar mailto:mailinglists@scriptolutions.com
Lothar Scholz mailinglists@scriptolutions.com writes:
So compiling against the static version of “msvcrt.lib” is okay ?
I believe so.
But unfortunately there are a few memory leaks when doing this,
at least _beginthread, _beginthreadEx are known to have problems in
the static version. And we must also compile all extension “.so” files
against the static lib, not really nice. So i think we still need
rkprebuild windows versions.
Well, you can compile ruby and distribute the results as long as you don’t
redistribute the compiler components with it. The users would have to
download those themselves.
Or we use Open Watcom or/and Borland C++ for windows compilation.
Sure. Or even g++. 
-Mark
Lothar Scholz wrote:
So compiling against the static version of “msvcrt.lib” is okay ?
…
And we must also compile all extension “.so” files
against the static lib, not really nice. So i think we still need
prebuild windows versions.
I don’t quite follow this discussion since I’ve never built ruby myself,
I’m just a ruby “user” at this point.
However, my impression from reading the rubygarden wiki was that ruby
with dependencies on only msvcrt.dll requires VC++; you may be able to
build under MinGW but it isn’t the mainstream way to develop ruby code.
And so you really want to have a purchased copy of VC++. (This may be
a mistaken conclusion, please educate me…)
If so, I was thinking that with this new tools release by Microsoft,
some of that may be alleviated, and so with a bit of work on the build
process we could build ruby in a way that would fit the VC++ development
model, both free and purchased.
Jim