Hi Trog,

I don't believe that the Ruby GIL will have any effect on versions of Ruby --- for example version 1.91 and the theoretical 2.05 --- as far as causing limitations on use of different versions simultaneously.

The GIL, as I understand or misunderstand it, keeps a single interpreter from ...

Hi all,

The 64-bit quest for Windows is NOT being driven by VST developers and their clients; it is and has been driven for many years already by Microsoft, responding to hardware developments many years ago by Intel. As a historical note, the very first Platform SDK CD that I ever received from ...

VPDannyMan wrote:
My total preference right now is that its statically linked with WIN32OLE working 100%.

I would go even further and strongly advise DSP Robotics to support the *full official* Ruby installation, assuming that this isn't already being done by default. (It appears that more stuff ...

Hi all,

Frankly, I don't think that Ruby improvements are a problem. Consider an example:

Exports from FS version 3.x are linked to dspr_msvcr90_Ruby191.dll

Exports from FS version 4.x are linked to dspr_msvcr90_Ruby205.dll

From the perspective of the loader, these are DLL's not Ruby ...

rlr wrote:
In case the 2nd plugin would need a different ruby: Game over.

I agree that we are very limited to what can be done with rewriting the Ruby DLL, but this is because a linking was done to a specific DLL already --- specific name, specific EXPORTS --- not because of the "one Ruby ...

rlr wrote: ... most difficult but nevertheless necessary problem to solve.

"Difficult" --- probably so.

"Necessary" --- depends on what Ruby is asked to do, so one actually has a lot of control over how "necessary" this is.

Regards,
Dave Clark

Hi Support,

Will this IL version of FS contain the Ruby component?

If so, how do they plan on handling the interpreter DLL? It might prove interesting to you to discuss that issue with them, even if they don't plan to implement it.


Regards,
Dave Clark

Hi all,

It should be pointed out that it is not necessary to "install Ruby," but merely the Ruby interpreter DLL. There is a huge difference between these two tasks.

Having users install the DLL does not mean that the current wrapping method ("one file" solution) needs to be abandoned, nor does it ...

Hi all,

If it was I who had to provide a short-term solution, I would:

1) Rename the file mscvr90-ruby191.dll to something like dspr-mscvr90-ruby191.dll because the FS version is NOT the same as the official ruby DLL. (Ref: FS User's Guide.)

2) Create a structure such as DSP-Robotics/Flowstone ...