From: "trans. (T. Onoma)" Date: 2004-10-27T23:55:01+09:00 Subject: Re: The real Ruby vs. Python. On Wednesday 27 October 2004 10:11 am, Abe Vionas_MailingList wrote: | Ruby, on the other hand, while it has a comprehensive | offering on the Linux platform, is hamstrung on | windows by it's lack in important areas. If libraries | exist, they more often then not are NOT being actively | maintained (my research last night indicated that by | and large more Python libraries are continually | actively maintained). This last point is important | because at one time or another Ruby has HAD libraries | to cover any need, but without active maintenance they | are nearly worthless. I for one will not even look at | a library that hasn't had a release in 2004. Ironically that should be a good thing! It's a poor indicator. A lib may be "relatively perfected" and need not be changed ever again. People are too caught up on changing things. Get something to work well, then start a new project. But I do hear you --since the above is rarely ever done. 2 cents, T.