Hello,
We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.
This is a bug fix release. There should be no big
difference from 1.8.4. We hope 1.8.5 is more stable and
reliable than its preceding versions.
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/ruby-1.8.5.tar.gz
3fbb02294a8ca33d4684055adba5ed6f
Happy Hacking!
matz.
Good news!
If anybody is interested, I've written a change summary:
http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?ruby+1.8.5+changelog
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:45:49PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.
This is a bug fix release. There should be no big
difference from 1.8.4. We hope 1.8.5 is more stable and
reliable than its preceding versions.
--
Mauricio Fernandez - http://eigenclass.org - singular Ruby
matz wrote:
We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.[...]
Thank you matz. 
I've compiled it for Win32, if any of you are interested:
http://antoniocangiano.com/files/ruby_1.8.5_2006-08-25.zip
Thanks,
Antonio
--
Zen and the Art of Ruby Programming
Great! I can't wait for the Windows Installer version of Ruby 1.8.5
(which will hopefully for a change be compiled with a recent MS
compiler such as MSVC++ 20005)
Cheers,
Morten
Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:45:49PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.
> This is a bug fix release. There should be no big
> difference from 1.8.4. We hope 1.8.5 is more stable and
> reliable than its preceding versions.
Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:45:49PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.
> This is a bug fix release. There should be no big
> difference from 1.8.4. We hope 1.8.5 is more stable and
> reliable than its preceding versions.Good news!
If anybody is interested, I've written a change summary:
http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?ruby+1.8.5+changelog
--
Mauricio Fernandez - http://eigenclass.org - singular Ruby
#pretty_inspect, How's that different from #pp and why not just #pi?
T.
thanks mauricio!
-a
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:45:49PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.
This is a bug fix release. There should be no big
difference from 1.8.4. We hope 1.8.5 is more stable and
reliable than its preceding versions.Good news!
If anybody is interested, I've written a change summary:
--
to foster inner awareness, introspection, and reasoning is more efficient than
meditation and prayer.
- h.h. the 14th dalai lama
Thanks...this is great.
--Dibya
On 8/25/06, Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@acm.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:45:49PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.
> This is a bug fix release. There should be no big
> difference from 1.8.4. We hope 1.8.5 is more stable and
> reliable than its preceding versions.Good news!
If anybody is interested, I've written a change summary:
--
Mauricio Fernandez - http://eigenclass.org - singular Ruby
Antonio Cangiano wrote:
matz wrote:
> We have just released the latest stable version of Ruby.[...]Thank you matz.
I've compiled it for Win32, if any of you are interested:
http://antoniocangiano.com/files/ruby_1.8.5_2006-08-25.zip
Which compiler toolset? mingw? vc6? something else?
Thanks,
Antonio--
http://antoniocangiano.com
Zen and the Art of Ruby Programming
mortench wrote:
Great! I can't wait for the Windows Installer version of Ruby 1.8.5
(which will hopefully for a change be compiled with a recent MS
compiler such as MSVC++ 20005)
I don't think that version of Microsoft's programming suite is due for
another 18000 years...
Cheers,
Dave
Not until certain things have been worked out. 
-austin
On 8/25/06, mortench <mortench@gmail.com> wrote:
Great! I can't wait for the Windows Installer version of Ruby 1.8.5
(which will hopefully for a change be compiled with a recent MS
compiler such as MSVC++ 20005)
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
* austin@zieglers.ca
Ryan Raaum wrote:
Which compiler toolset? mingw? vc6? something else?
Hi Ryan,
I've used VC 7.1 (Visual C++ Toolkit 2003).
HTH
Antonio
--
Zen and the Art of Ruby Programming
I hope not. Visual Studio 8.0 has introduced all sorts of stupidities to the C/C++ world which should have stayed confined to the .NET world.
Stupidities like manifests and the inability to do LoadLibrary("MSVCR80.DLL") for similar reasons.
I often build trivial apps for testing purposes and sometimes deploy them to others computers. Not a problem with VC 6.0,7.0,7.1. Can't do it with 8.0 - complains about missing manifests and all manner of things. Can't find any documentation about it. I guess I should buy a $600 Windows Installer based installer so that I can deploy my trivial app internally in the company (*). Simpler to stick with VC 6.0 and just copy the two files required across the network.
Keep it simple, use VC 6.0, 7.0 or 7.1.
Stephen
(*) I did do this 5 years ago only to find that on most Windows NT 4.0 computers (in the UK at least) the MSI installer would fail and no patch from MS would fix it. Solution: Use a non "Windows Installer" installer.
On 8/25/06, mortench <mortench@gmail.com> wrote:
Great! I can't wait for the Windows Installer version of Ruby 1.8.5
(which will hopefully for a change be compiled with a recent MS
compiler such as MSVC++ 20005)
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting
The name to look for is SideBySide. There is some redistributable
file, that will supposedly install the runtime and its manifests, so
the app won't complain. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the
file. Perhaps vcredist_x86.exe?
This seems like good info on the topic:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=164465&SiteID=1
On 8/28/06, Stephen Kellett <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
them to others computers. Not a problem with VC 6.0,7.0,7.1. Can't do it
with 8.0 - complains about missing manifests and all manner of things.
I can tell you for a fact that 1.8.5 version of the One-Click
installer will still be VC++6 -- there is no time for migrating to a
new build system.
Beyond that, a decision has yet to be made on whether the OCI will
change to MinGW or VC++8. There was a long thread here on ruby-talk a
month or so ago where I asked people to post their thoughts on the
pros and cons of each choice. A lot of good information was posted,
but I haven't yet had time to analyze it (and there are still some
talks with Microsoft that haven't yet happened). My feeling is that
the arguments are leaning towards MinGW, but its not at all clear cut.
Thanks Stephen, for your input below. I don't recall those facts
coming out in the previous thread so I will add your comments in to
the mix.
Curt
On 8/28/06, Stephen Kellett <snail@objmedia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 8/25/06, mortench <mortench@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Great! I can't wait for the Windows Installer version of Ruby 1.8.5
>> (which will hopefully for a change be compiled with a recent MS
>> compiler such as MSVC++ 20005)I hope not. Visual Studio 8.0 has introduced all sorts of stupidities to
the C/C++ world which should have stayed confined to the .NET world.Stupidities like manifests and the inability to do
LoadLibrary("MSVCR80.DLL") for similar reasons.I often build trivial apps for testing purposes and sometimes deploy
them to others computers. Not a problem with VC 6.0,7.0,7.1. Can't do it
with 8.0 - complains about missing manifests and all manner of things.
Can't find any documentation about it. I guess I should buy a $600
Windows Installer based installer so that I can deploy my trivial app
internally in the company (*). Simpler to stick with VC 6.0 and just
copy the two files required across the network.Keep it simple, use VC 6.0, 7.0 or 7.1.
Stephen
(*) I did do this 5 years ago only to find that on most Windows NT 4.0
computers (in the UK at least) the MSI installer would fail and no patch
from MS would fix it. Solution: Use a non "Windows Installer" installer.