How to compile Ruby from source on Windows for FS3

[VPDannyMan]

Every minute this remains unfixed, I loose more confidence in software made with Flowstone. As it is right now we have no idea how many plugins and exe files have already been made and distributed. I think its safe to say this problem is in the wild already, as such ALL future developments are susceptable to it (depending on Outsims's fix). As time progresses and more people release their developments, the worse this problem will become.

Whatever they decide to do to fix the problem, this requires IMMEDIATE attention. I would even go so far as to send out an email to ALL customers asking them NOT to release any further software until an update is available. Who knows if people will listen, but at least that might help to preserve the integrity of future FS developments a little?
Scary...

I've just posted to the dev's with a couple of suggestions that I think might help...
1) Export option "Run in a separate Ruby instance"
2) Plugin folder path added to the default load paths (it isn't at the moment)
3) A "Run me first" Ruby where we can safely put "requires" and class definitions knowing that it will always be parsed before there can be any method calls from other primitives.

This needs to be fixed properly, I'm not saying that your options is are not correct but really, copying a dll out of a dll or exe only to make external calls to the functions contained within it, is not really a proper way of doing things. I'm surprised that virus scanners have not picked up on it yet as well! If they did not have the source code, then ok I can sort of see doing it like this, its still not right, but sort of understandable. However, the source code for the Ruby DLL is available though, so they could have statically linked it! If they didn't want to do that, then they could have provided a real compiler to compile the custom DLL and the FS dll statically linked on the fly. Then your custom functions would be there inside the FS DLL as with the Ruby. There would be no need to copy it out of the DLL all the calls would be internal.

Also, The "run me first" thing should have already been added.. goes without saying. So should access to COM objects.(OLE)

[tester]

Life-based scenario: Are you experiencing instabilities? Nope? Then forget it
Besides FlowStone is for different purposes developed if you haven't noticed, not only for audio.

You missed out one very important word. "Are you experiencing instabilities YET ?". It's very early days for FS and Ruby, but as the library of downloadable schematics on the forum starts to grow, the potential for problems will grow exponentially....

I was ironic a little bit here Trog, just in case you haven't noticed. People were experiencing bugs in SM, but not enough buggy bugs in order to make the newer version of SM for... how long? In other words - "have some expectations, but not so much, thus - be rather pragmatic, not idealistic". It appears that this topic is / will be full of missing missers.

Now is the time - ESPECIALLY for non-rubyists.
So I think it is very good to have a debate about this now, BEFORE we start seeing these problems. The Djinn is now out of the lamp - maybe the developers thought we'd only use Ruby as a form of "Green Code", but the things it can do once you get fully "object oriented" are too powerful to ignore.

What makes the debate createive and constructive - is a bunch of shortcuts, without unnecessary emotions. It's not the topic you talk about, it's the way, (and maybe the amount of speculative expressions too) how you talk about it.

[tester]

ok well we've obviously found our FS User A.. In a user called Tester

I confess

But don't expect too much knowledge from me on low-level SM/FS programming. Nor fascination on it. I just create complex structures of already working blocks; and so long as these bocks perform their functions for sound production - I'm fine with it.

[VPDannyMan]

No worries Tester..

[tester]

:-D
FlowStone is for different purposes developed if you haven't noticed, not only for audio.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but that is a moronic statement and shows a total lack of understanding of the problem...
"tester"... This affects all Flowstone developments!
In fact it will affect EXE files that do not process audio, and it will affect audio processing plugs. It will cross contaminate between them as well. So running an exe that does not process audio, could contaminate a plugin that does. Running an audio processing plugin could contaminate an executable that does not.

To become even more ironic, I should say now - "fix it Scotty - and let me know when you have finished, I'm on the bridge". As I said before, and as you can see in my re-action - either you are focused on issue or on my ignorance, the choice is yours. And trust me - the more issues you encounter, the greater frustration will be. So I really encourage anyone - to calm down and extract the essence only.

[tester]

You want all the modules you download from the forum to work reliably, surely?

With SM/FS - I think I got used to the words "almost correctly"
I'm not against deep digging. I just recognize patterns; old habit from moderating forums.

[VPDannyMan]

That was written before I read Trog's reply which calmed things down. It was abbrasive for sure, but I feel the need to explain why so that we can put this to rest.

First was that you essentially seemed to be saying "ah this is no big deal, it has not caused any problems yet so ignore it.". That type of response is one of the reasons SM had so many problems. No one is doing DSR or Outsim any favors by candy coating things. If something needs to be fixed then they need to know. If they want FS to be a success then they'll listen and get things done. So I was annoyed at the time, I'm not now, that you did not understand the gravity of the Flow Stone error and were so quickly willing to write it off as nothing. I have seen others do that in the SM forum before and thats a mistake...

The second reason I was annoyed was that you incorrectly thought I was calling someone an idiot and then arrogantly told me how to use the forum. So yes, it was abbrasive, but I believe me, I bit my tongue and held back.

Now after talking with Trog, arguing and flaming is only a distractioin from the real problem and thats all I want to focus on..

[tester]

Okay, not interrupting anymore

[VPDannyMan]

I mean no disrespect Tester, I just wanted you to know that..

[trogluddite]

"have some expectations, but not so much, thus - be rather pragmatic, not idealistic"

He, he, yeah I know what you mean - do you think I would still be here after 7 years of SM if I weren't pragmatic?
And I've posted enough Ruby examples recently to show that I'm not letting a few niggles stop me from getting stuck into using what's already there!

We'll see what Malc has to say when he finishes the holidays - he knows by e-mail that it is something that's worrying us. And he has said already on this thread, and even in the user manual, that these are things that he would like to improve.
I really don't think that it is so far away from being an excellent implementation, just a couple of weak spots that have been exposed by users having had a few weeks to put the software through its paces - I think Malc probably knows us well enough to have expected that!