There are windows binaries for ruby-gtk2 and a gtk installer, what are = =20
you
talking about?
I never said they weren't, and am in fact quite aware of them.
The Gtk installer definately seems new to me, although I don't really =20
follow happenings in Gtk - last time I checked (a _long_ time ago) I'm no=
t =20
sure if the available installer was official, and I recall not being able=
=20
to get it to work. As unrelated as these arguments may be to the quality =
=20
Gtk itself, they're more than enough for me to go for what Just Works (tm=
) =20
instead of tackling quirks.
A frozen API is very important not only for the programmer, but for
distribution. When you have an app with 20,000 lines of code, you don't= =20
want
the app to break just because you now have to handle another add-in.
You might be confusing your environments a little. The convention on =20
Windows is for applications to bundle their dependencies along and use =20
those versions. If you keep building your 20,000 lines of code against a =
=20
version of a library that works, you're also going to redistribute said =20
library in this version, and rare is the adventurous end user that will g=
o =20
on and replace DLLs applications use. For "single-use" internal tools, =20
this is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things if it lets you use =20
"deploy by copy".
Of course, for applications that have to be maintained for a long time, =20
your point stands.
and ease of deployment is very easy with Gtk/ruby-gtk2 as well.. if you= =20
read
the fine site
As I said, I blame some aforementioned pet peeves that would make someone=
=20
not make Gtk his first choice on Windows. I never said Gtk wasn't easy to=
=20
deploy, just that it's understandable that people in a production =20
environment won't readily switch from something that works like a charm =20
into the unknown unless their current tools shoot them in the foot. =20
(That's why personal hacking is so essential to a programmer)
David Vallner
