Re: ruby 1.8.4 released


#1

Better optimizations…

Patrick


#2

On 27/12/05, Bennett, Patrick removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Better optimizations…

At least in theory, yes. More importantly: 1) it is now the supported
version of the compiler; 2) the PSDK includes the support necessary to
support Win32 and Win64 (both x86-64 and IA64). Both Microsoft and
Apple have placed big bets on x86-64, so compiling with the proper
compiler will at least make it that much easier to work with when we
start compiling for Win64.

-austin


#3

On 27/12/05, Austin Z. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

On 27/12/05, Bennett, Patrick removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Better optimizations…

At least in theory, yes. More importantly: 1) it is now the supported
version of the compiler; 2) the PSDK includes the support necessary to
support Win32 and Win64 (both x86-64 and IA64). Both Microsoft and
Apple have placed big bets on x86-64, so compiling with the proper
compiler will at least make it that much easier to work with when we
start compiling for Win64.

…on the other hand, it will face the same difficulty that is still
currently faced from time to time with respect to VC6 extensions
working with VC7 and VC7.1 extensions. I am looking at recompiling
everything that the winstaller uses with VC8 (which is, in fact
version 14 of the compiler). You’ll see that there are a few
incompatibilities with the Ruby build process if you look on
ruby-core.

-austin


#4

I think I’m going to stick with VC++ 7.1 for this round. I have a
limited amount of time, and I know people are anxious to get their
hands on a 1.8.4 version of the one-click installer.

Curt


#5

Thanks a lot! Merry Xmas to all ruby hackers!

-g.


#6

Hi,

At Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:59:12 +0900,
Curt H. wrote in [ruby-talk:172735]:

I think I’m going to stick with VC++ 7.1 for this round. I have a
limited amount of time, and I know people are anxious to get their
hands on a 1.8.4 version of the one-click installer.

I rather recommend VC6 or gcc -mnocygwin.


#7

I haven’t been around for a while so sorry to dive in all of a sudden
again
(sadly very little opportunity to use Ruby these days and worse, my
beloved
Ruby manuals were burnt to a cinder when our building came-a-cropper
from
the Hemel Buncefield Oil-Depot “disaster”).

Anyway, the Windows installer for Ruby is still 1.8.2-15 - is this still
the
one most people use, or is there a “better way” to get and use Ruby now
on a
Windows platform?

Merry Christmas/HNY all!

Glenn

On 12/28/05, George M. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

I think I’m going to stick with VC++ 7.1 for this round. I have a


http://www.gmosx.com
http://www.navel.gr
http://www.nitrohq.com

All the best
Glenn
Aylesbury, UK


#8

OK, patience it is. And perhaps a game of Hearts too :o)

Cheers

Glenn The Firefighter

On 12/28/05, James B. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Anyway, the Windows installer for Ruby is still 1.8.2-15 - is this still

All the best
Glenn
Aylesbury, UK


#9

Glenn S. wrote:

I haven’t been around for a while so sorry to dive in all of a sudden again
(sadly very little opportunity to use Ruby these days and worse, my beloved
Ruby manuals were burnt to a cinder when our building came-a-cropper from
the Hemel Buncefield Oil-Depot “disaster”).

Anyway, the Windows installer for Ruby is still 1.8.2-15 - is this still the
one most people use, or is there a “better way” to get and use Ruby now on a
Windows platform?

Patience.

1.8.2-15 is the current version.

But grep the recent archives for questions on the 1.8.4 version.

James

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools