3 ms·
Such nonsense. Bill Gates' Microsoft would've put hundreds of developers on IronRuby and ensured it was the fastest and the most feature rich implementation the
by borisk 16y ago
Such nonsense. Bill Gates' Microsoft would've put hundreds of developers on IronRuby and ensured it was the fastest and the most feature rich implementation there is. Just like they did with C++, Java and JavaScript.
BTW Windows is completely useless for any serious Ruby development/hosting. There are a ton of bugs in networking, threading, GC.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoIt took Microsoft a long time to get a C++ compiler out that was worthy of the name. Templates were so unusable that they were the laughingstock of comp.lang.c++ for much of the 90s. J++ was merely a trap for the unwary, lacking several important interoperability features (JNI and RMI come to mind) and promptly abandoned when a judge prevented them from poisoning the Java ecosystem. Think twice before you rely on them to faithfully implement a standard.
- marksmen 16y agoerr they created few best languages out there C# and F# and Python / Java run like kinfe through butter. Ruby Programmers are incompetent apple fanboi's.
- earl 16y agoI seem to remember Visual Studio having a better C++ compiler than gcc for quite a while -- at least through the whole egcs fork. Some of the templating stuff didn't work in VS6, but I think that was pretty universally true for all compilers through 2003 or so. Or am I misremembering?
- prodigal_erik 16y agoThe way I remember it, Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 in 1998 was their first compiler that handled just about everything I could do with Borland C++ 3.0 back in 1991. Each of these was disappointing, but Microsoft's earlier releases were just about useless. I didn't do much with GCC until later.