# Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-one-click-installer-mingw-or-vc2005/99141>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [July 20, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-one-click-installer-mingw-or-vc2005/99141 "2006-07-20T16:10:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-one-click-installer-mingw-or-vc2005/99141/1 "2006-07-20T16:10:57Z")

</div>

I would also like to support a two-part solution that has been suggested  
before:

- one part that essentially installs with one click and gives you a nice  
system  
to start with, like the one-click installer does today,
- plus the possibility to install software from source, as you’re used  
to  
from using Ruby under Linux.

I guess this counts as a vote for MinGW 🙂

Best regards,

Axel

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 4:59am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-one-click-installer-mingw-or-vc2005/99141/2 "2006-07-21T04:59:19Z")

</div>

removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote:

> I guess this counts as a vote for MinGW 🙂

Could someone remind me what it was that _can’t_ be built using MinGW?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 7:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-one-click-installer-mingw-or-vc2005/99141/3 "2006-07-21T07:31:32Z")

</div>

> Could someone remind me what it was that _can’t_ be built using MinGW?  
> I’ll have a shot at that 😉

There is nothing really that can’t be build with mingw/msys. Even though  
‘Min’ stands for Minimal, with the proper support libs you can build  
anything at all. Its a full blown compiler suite.

The choice is much more between a standard compiler for MS Windows and  
one  
that is overtaking on the outer lane. Two more comments to that:

- Not sure what standard means on Windows anyway; they have pretty much  
shot themselves in the foot a few times in the past over that.
- Can anyone really prove mingw doesn’t adhere even more closely to the  
standards? Has anyone looked at the generated code and has some solid  
technical arguments involving assembler and compiler optimisation that  
imply we should chose MS VC++ over mingw?

Ok that last comment is another question, actually. Anyone?

kaspar

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 8:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-one-click-installer-mingw-or-vc2005/99141/4 "2006-07-21T08:11:24Z")

</div>

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote:
> 
> > I guess this counts as a vote for MinGW 🙂
> 
> Could someone remind me what it was that _can’t_ be built using MinGW?

My only concern is the ability to interface with other binary-only  
code, especially c++ libraries.

To tell the truth, I haven’t even tried, so I’m not sure what  
problems, if any, there is with that. But I would really like if  
someone who knows his stuff to try out and convince me that it really  
isn’t a issue.

After that, I’m all for mingw! (though I’d hope they update gcc, even  
for only testing)

And embedded (extension) developer suite would certainly be awesome!  
Either separate package or gem installable (maybe even have source gem  
for building the cross-compiler?)