[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

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

Stefan Lang

7/20/2006 1:07:00 PM


>
>I need to go through all of the feedback and tally up the pros and
>cons. But
>my gut feeling is that MinGW is winning the race.

+1 for MinGW.

-r

>
>Curt
>
>------=_Part_7415_9360836.1153359171238--
>




--
Posted with http://De.... Sign up and save your mailbox.

26 Answers

Reggie Mr

7/20/2006 7:48:00 PM

0

Ryan Raaum wrote:
>>
>>I need to go through all of the feedback and tally up the pros and
>>cons. But
>>my gut feeling is that MinGW is winning the race.
>
> +1 for MinGW.
>
> -r

-1 for MinGW
+1 for VC

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Alex Young

7/20/2006 9:16:00 PM

0

Reggie Mr wrote:
> Ryan Raaum wrote:
<snip>
>> +1 for MinGW.
>>
>> -r
>
> -1 for MinGW
> +1 for VC
>
Not to throw stones or anything, but are these positions backed by a
technical knowledge, or political opinions? If technical, then what are
the arguments?

I know which I'd prefer, and I'm pretty sure I know which is the more
generally useful of the two, but I've kept out of the discussion so far
because I'm not an extension distributor who would be directly affected.

Apologies for the noise.

--
Alex

Lothar Scholz

7/21/2006 9:12:00 AM

0


RM> -1 for MinGW
RM> +1 for VC

Some here

-1 for MingGW
+1 for VC

VC has still a much better optimizer then gcc, if you use it with care
about 10% faster, which today where CPU's are not getting faster as
fast is still important.

MS it is keeping better capatibility. How many thousands of programms
were brocken by the (technically unnecessary) changes from 3.3 to 3.4.

MinGW always had problems with Windows specific new technology because
in the past - don't know how the situation is now - they were not
allowed to use the windows header files directly.

A 77MB toolchain is extremely heavy.

Then look at the update frequency of MingW and components, i can use
MSVC for years without problems, but the release-often/release-too-early
sympthom of open source is a different beast.

And finally, it is always a good decision to use the compiler from the
system vendor. Unix guys should remember this. Even if it is a totally
strange HP PA-RISC compiler. This simply gives the best compatibility.


To cut a long story short: I don't trust MinGW.


--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ru...
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's



stu

7/21/2006 11:38:00 AM

0


Lothar Scholz wrote:
> RM> -1 for MinGW
> RM> +1 for VC
>
> Some here
>
> -1 for MingGW
> +1 for VC
>
> VC has still a much better optimizer then gcc, if you use it with care
> about 10% faster, which today where CPU's are not getting faster as
> fast is still important.

10% is a LOT! I'd like to see these numbers that proove 10%.
I'd be sure there is a difference but 10% is ridiculous.

> MS it is keeping better capatibility. How many thousands of programms
> were brocken by the (technically unnecessary) changes from 3.3 to 3.4.

And how close to the C++ spec was vc6? it was ABYSMAL! Its better in
vc2005.

> A 77MB toolchain is extremely heavy.

It is not a 77mb download for mingw. I would also think ruby would only
need gcc-core, binutils and msys.

The VC++2005 Express is 474mb download

> Then look at the update frequency of MingW and components, i can use
> MSVC for years without problems, but the release-often/release-too-early
> sympthom of open source is a different beast.

some people are still using gcc 2.9.5. whats your point? there is no
forced upgrade requirement.

> And finally, it is always a good decision to use the compiler from the
> system vendor. Unix guys should remember this. Even if it is a totally
> strange HP PA-RISC compiler. This simply gives the best compatibility.

This is true. Suns compiler was always better than gcc and same to for
ibms power compiler vs gcc..

I'd rate gcc over msvc but under the Intel C compiler.

>
> To cut a long story short: I don't trust MinGW.
>

I smell a rat. Most of your complaints are bogus.

Doesnt microsofts license forbid redistribution of VC Express anyway?

-stu

Patrick Hurley

7/21/2006 11:47:00 AM

0

On 7/21/06, stu <yakumo9275@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesnt microsofts license forbid redistribution of VC Express anyway?

On the issue of licensing, can we distribute MSCVRT with an
application that was not built with VC? I seem to remember this being
something of an issue.

pth

Alex Young

7/21/2006 11:59:00 AM

0

stu wrote:
> Lothar Scholz wrote:
>> RM> -1 for MinGW RM> +1 for VC
>>
>> Some here
>>
>> -1 for MingGW +1 for VC
>>
>> VC has still a much better optimizer then gcc, if you use it with
>> care about 10% faster, which today where CPU's are not getting
>> faster as fast is still important.
>
> 10% is a LOT! I'd like to see these numbers that proove 10%. I'd be
> sure there is a difference but 10% is ridiculous.
It wouldn't surprise me, but I'd still like to see numbers.

Optimisation is completely tangential to the current issue, anyway -
Ruby's currently (if I remember correctly) broken with -O any higher
than 2, and it's the toolchain integration that's important here.

<snip>
> Doesnt microsofts license forbid redistribution of VC Express anyway?
>
From the EULA:

> 12. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. The first user of the software may
> transfer it, and this agreement, directly to a third party. Before
> the transfer, that party must agree that this agreement applies to
> the transfer and use of the software. The first user must uninstall
> the software before transferring it separately from the device. The
> first user may not retain any copies.

That'd be a no. That being said, if there's already a dialogue open
with Microsoft, it *might* be possible to talk them into allowing a
distribution of *only* the command-line tools Ruby needs, and not the
whole IDE kit and kaboodle. *Might*.

--
Alex



Kroeger, Simon (ext)

7/21/2006 12:32:00 PM

0



> From: stu [mailto:yakumo9275@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:40 PM
>
> > VC has still a much better optimizer then gcc, if you use
> it with care
> > about 10% faster, which today where CPU's are not getting faster as
> > fast is still important.
>
> 10% is a LOT! I'd like to see these numbers that proove 10%.
> I'd be sure there is a difference but 10% is ridiculous.

I know this does not say much, but without fiddling with optimizer
flags I got the following numbers (again, for a *very* small set
of tests - does someone suggested a performance-test-suit?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
D:\simon\ruby-snapshot>ruby-vc6\ruby.exe -v sudoku-solver.rb
ruby 1.8.5 (2006-07-20) [i386-mswin32]
time elapsed: 26.969 sec.
...

D:\simon\ruby-snapshot>ruby-vc2005\ruby.exe -v sudoku-solver.rb
ruby 1.8.5 (2006-07-20) [i386-mswin32_80]
time elapsed: 19.766 sec.
...

D:\simon\ruby-snapshot>ruby-mingw\ruby.exe -v sudoku-solver.rb
ruby 1.8.5 (2006-07-20) [i386-mingw32]
time elapsed: 19.812 sec.
...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't dare to say anything about vc2005 and gcc 3.4.5 (which
was used in the mingw build) but obviously we would benefit from
loosing the old vc6.

cheers

Simon

The test code was striped from ruby-talk: (shall I try anything else?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$count = 0

def valid?(state, x, y)
# check in col and row
0.upto(8) do |i|
return false if i != y and state[x][i] == state[x][y]
return false if i != x and state[i][y] == state[x][y]
end

# check in box
x_from = (x / 3) * 3
y_from = (y / 3) * 3
x_from.upto(x_from + 2) do |xx|
y_from.upto(y_from + 2) do |yy|
return false if (xx != x or yy != y) and state[xx][yy] ==
state[x][y]
end
end

true
end



def next_state(state, x, y)
$count = $count + 1
y = 0 and x = x + 1 if y == 9
return true if x == 9

unless state[x][y].zero?
return false unless valid?(state, x, y)
return next_state(state, x, y + 1)
else
1.upto(9) do |i|
state[x][y] = i
return true if valid?(state, x, y) and next_state(state, x, y + 1)
end
end

state[x][y] = 0
false
end


## MAIN ##

start =
[
[ 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 5, 0, 0, 1 ],
[ 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0 ],
[ 0, 0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0 ],
[ 0, 0, 3, 5, 0, 4, 1, 0, 0 ],
[ 0, 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0 ],
[ 0, 0, 8, 9, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0 ],
[ 0, 0, 9, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0 ],
[ 0, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0 ],
[ 4, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
]

start_time = Time.new

if next_state(start, 0, 0)
puts "time elapsed: #{Time.new - start_time} sec."
puts "count: #{$count}"
start.each do |val|
puts val.join(" ")
end
else
puts "Not solveable!"
end
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lothar Scholz

7/21/2006 1:06:00 PM

0

Hello stu,

s> 10% is a LOT! I'd like to see these numbers that proove 10%.
s> I'd be sure there is a difference but 10% is ridiculous.

I measured this with my machine. I only did a -O3 with gcc so maybe i
missed something but i wont out of box optimization.

s> And how close to the C++ spec was vc6? it was ABYSMAL! Its better in
s> vc2005.

gcc broke plain C, not C++.

And i don't care about spec's but i care about the millions of lines of
code that are out there in the world and the dozens of millions of money it
needs to convert them. My conclusion since this day is and still is
never trust the GCC team.

s> The VC++2005 Express is 474mb download

Hmm, i must say i hadn't looked at it, the VC6++ free download was
something like 10 MB but i think Express does no contain the whole
IDE.

>> To cut a long story short: I don't trust MinGW.

s> I smell a rat. Most of your complaints are bogus.
No. Most of the projects that run in great trouble by choosing wrong
tools didn't had these problems for technical reasons.

s> Doesnt microsofts license forbid redistribution of VC Express anyway?
Maybe. But because i think the one click installer shouldn't include the
compiler this is not a valid argument for me.



--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ru...
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's



Ara.T.Howard

7/21/2006 2:00:00 PM

0

Guido Sohne

7/21/2006 2:51:00 PM

0

On 7/21/06, Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:
> s> 10% is a LOT! I'd like to see these numbers that proove 10%.
> s> I'd be sure there is a difference but 10% is ridiculous.
>
> I measured this with my machine. I only did a -O3 with gcc so maybe i
> missed something but i wont out of box optimization.

Umm. This is not really a sensible argument. What does out of the box
optimization have to do with anything? Too lazy to type -O2 !? Not to
mention that you mention 10% difference in performance which doesn't
match up with the sudoku example posted.

> s> And how close to the C++ spec was vc6? it was ABYSMAL! Its better in
> s> vc2005.
>
> gcc broke plain C, not C++.

Great. So you want a broken compiler now? And again, what does this
have to do with the point being raised, which is totally ignored? C++
is borken enough between compilers and versions of compilers without
mainstream vendors making it worse by shipping crappy implementations.

> And i don't care about spec's but i care about the millions of lines of
> code that are out there in the world and the dozens of millions of money it
> needs to convert them. My conclusion since this day is and still is
> never trust the GCC team.

Hell, I don't trust *you* based on what you are saying here. You are
probably the type who doesn't care about web standards either because
of the millions of Internet Explorer browsers out there in the world.
Right up until you discover you're getting hacked through the buggy
implementation and can't switch away because others who think like you
have made it impossible to use the web without that particular
browser.

I call that busy work. Creating extra needless work and hassle for
yourself because you are too short sighted to follow standards.
Consider that if Microsoft had bothered to follow standards we
wouldn't even need to be discussing this. Or is that what you call
'innovation'?

> s> The VC++2005 Express is 474mb download
>
> Hmm, i must say i hadn't looked at it, the VC6++ free download was
> something like 10 MB but i think Express does no contain the whole
> IDE.

And if Express doesn't contain the whole IDE that's a whole lot more
to download isn't it?

> >> To cut a long story short: I don't trust MinGW.
>
> s> I smell a rat. Most of your complaints are bogus.
> No. Most of the projects that run in great trouble by choosing wrong
> tools didn't had these problems for technical reasons.

More projects fail from wrong people than from wrong tools. If the
tool is so hot and important, why is Vista so late if the VC2005
compiler is such hot stuff to avoid 'great trouble'?

> s> Doesnt microsofts license forbid redistribution of VC Express anyway?
> Maybe. But because i think the one click installer shouldn't include the
> compiler this is not a valid argument for me.

Complete noise. No meaningful contribution except shilling for what
appears to be a dead end and inferior product. So because you don't
want the compiler we all should go and dance on the moon?

-- G.