[ruby-core:112556] [Ruby master Feature#17859] Start IRB when running just `ruby`

Issue #17859 has been updated by rubyFeedback (robert heiler).





I don't have a strong opinion on the topic. I am fine either way.



Both seem to have a valid point of view, e. g. the "it is convenient"

approach. This is kind of true. But, as said, I don't really have=20

any particularly strong pro or con on it, be it a change, or no

change.



I wanted to comment on two other statements, though:



(1) The "it may be slow". Well, one could focus on a "bare irb" or

"base irb" behaviour, such as zverok showed (e. g. "python which

loads instantaneously, has no syntax highlight, and very

simplistic autocomplete"). People could modify the behaviour=20

via irbrc and load add-ons. I once even loaded all my local

gems by also using Thread.new {} for loading them, since some

took some time, and I thought I could just "insta-start" irb,

and type commands, while background loading could proceed. It

did not seem to work quite in the way how I thought it would

be, so I switched to a "minimal IRB" again, where I really just

start the things I need on a daily basis, and load other things

only when I need it.



I don't know whether irb is slow or not compared to python startup,

but I feel that this question can be approached, even if it is just

a mini-irb with less functionality. The main question should be=20

whether it is worth to change the default behaviour, e. g. if=20

more newcomers would think this is better, than typing a separate

command (e. g. irb). That should be the primary question, the other

questions are secondary to that one, I would think.



(2) In regards to the "war", let's call it rather a "difference in approach"

(irb versus pry). The way how I see it irb adopted what seemed

useful from pry, even before the later rewrite that took place,

without necessarily going the full introspection route that pry=20

adopted from the get go. So I see these two more as a separate projects

really, but irb learning from pry more than pry would learn from irb

(since it has a slightly different use case).



I don't think this is a bad thing. If anyone remembers, there was a

time we did not have BasicObject, and if memory serves me well=20

_why was important in suggesting it, as he was testing an interactive

ruby on a website, and there having some "vanilla state" seemed

important (probably also with SAFETY or what old security checks

were still in place, to get it to work in a browser; of course since

then we can do so; I think there is a project on github that does

that, hsbt contributed to it if I remember correctly, but I forgot

the name of that project).



----------------------------------------

Feature #17859: Start IRB when running just `ruby`

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17859#change-102006



* Author: deivid (David Rodr=EDguez)

* Status: Open

* Priority: Normal

----------------------------------------

Compare python:



```

$ python

Python 3.8.3 (default, Jul  8 2020, 16:49:12)=20

[GCC 7.5.0] on linux

Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.

>>>=20

```



To ruby:



```

$ ruby

# just hangs

```



I think firing up a console it's a good default behaviour for beginners.







--=20

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

 ______________________________________________
 ruby-core mailing list -- [e-mail]
 To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
 ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/ruby-c=
ore.ml.ruby-lang.org/