From: Curt Hibbs <curt@...>
Date: 2004-08-13T22:38:42+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyForge project and gem distriubtion

Alexander Kellett wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 09:14:25PM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > I don't understand why the rpa folks had to reinvent the packaging
> > wheel here: the service they offer is orthogonal to Gems, and could
> > have used Gems as the distribution mechanism.
>
> i must say this is erm. confusing me a tad.
>
> why do we use ruby when c is a working alternative?
> why choose one distribution over another? why was
> rails written in the first place when other frameworks
> were already around? why rewrite vim? why discuss
> modifications to ruby when it already works?

I think you missed the point about the orimary functionality of rpa being
orthogonal to RubyGems. Just as Rails built itself on top of webrick, rpa
could have built itself on top of rubygems.

> rpa-base has many advantages over gems.
> stifling development by making requests for
> standardization this early in the game is not
> gonna do ruby as a whole any good whatsoever.

Same point as above, rpa could provide those advantage as a layer over
rubygems without having to reinvent the distribution layer.

I don't see how having this discussion stifles development. On the contrary,
I think it is very healthy.

Curt