From: Ilmari Heikkinen <kig@...>
Date: 2005-03-03T21:28:53+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA Status & The Problem with Ruby

On 3.3.2005, at 13:57, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> [from the blog post]
> These two problems are serious enough that I'd suggest that Matz and
> community establish specific standards for denoting how libraries are
> packaged, documented, and version dependencies (with third party 
> product, C
> libraries, other Ruby libraries, etc.) are designated. I'd also 
> suggest that
> RAA come up with a mechanism for denoting abandoned libraries vs. ones 
> that
> simply don't need to be ugpraded. Maybe an auto-email once a quarter 
> to the
> developer?

And continued in the other email:
> What is really bad about this is that many of the libs that are 
> current are
> *way* better than your average library, and a few are simply 
> *brilliant*.
> Many people (especially newcomers) don't know this because this 
> brilliance
> of drowned out in a sea of dead-ends.


Throwing some thoughts into air:

An archive of production-quality libraries, kept up-to-date, with the 
archive tools included in the stdlib. A sort of "extended stdlib." RPA? 
It has a sort of standardised good practices thing in it too ( 
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/118064 ).

It's a marketing problem aswell. If people don't know about it, they 
won't use it.

So the solution is three-fold:
1. agree on the "extended stdlib" tools and appoint a maintainer for 
them
2. advertise the tools until everyone knows about them (and uses them)
3. provide advocacy on the good libraries in the form of news hype and 
tutorials.

The point is that the tool needs to be in the stdlib, its package 
database needs to be maintained, and it needs positive exposure.


Ilmari
--
66. The regions beyond these places are either difficult of access 
because of their  excessive winters and great cold, or else cannot be 
sought out because, of some divine  influence of the gods.