Microsoft's C/C++ compiler freely available

[Richard Kilmer]

On Nov 22, 2003, at 9:17 AM, Ollivier Robert wrote:

> In article <bp4gi8064o@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> Phil Tomson <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:

>> had version 1.6.8, not 1.8.0. As I recall, we were trying to get
>> 1.8.0
>> out in time to make it into OSX 10.3 - were we just too late?

I tried working with Apple to do this (with special thanks to James
Duncan
Davidson) but it was just too late. They had already committed to
golden
master before 1.8 was finalized :-(

>
> At least it is complete with headers and libruby.dylib, something that
> was
> missing in 10.2. Anyway, Ruby 1.8.1 and the CVS version compile w/o
> problems. Be sure to have libreadline installed before recompiling or
> you
> won't get readline support in irb.

Yeah, I have a blog post on how to do it here:

[url]http://richkilmer.blogs.com/ether/2003/10/building_ruby_1.html[/url]

-rich

> --
> Ollivier ROBERT -=- Eurocontrol EEC/ITM -=- [email]roberto@eurocontrol.fr[/email]
> Usenet Canal Historique FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
>
>

[Frank Schmitt]

[email]bjsp123@imap.cc[/email] (Benjamin Peterson) writes:

> Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:<20031115082603.GB780@math.umd.edu>...

> > Question:
> > Why would you want to use Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when gcc is
> > available? No sarcasm. This is an honest question.

>
>
> A better question these days might be: why would you want to use
> Microsoft's C/C++ compiler when their C# compiler (and the .NET build
> tools and runtimes) are also free?

Because C/C++ are both platform-independent?
Because C# is yet another obsolete offspring of C/C++?
Because I don't want garbage collection in my compiled language of choice?
Because I want templates?
Because...

oh well, enough rant for now :-)
regards
frank

--
Frank Schmitt
4SC AG phone: +49 89 700763-0
e-mail: frankNO DOT SPAMschmitt AT 4sc DOT com