From: Curt Hibbs <curt@...>
Date: 2005-03-03T22:54:39+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA Status & The Problem with Ruby

Alexander Kellett wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> > 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.
>
> this issue comes up every few months.
> yet the last real answer (rpa) basically
> disappeared into the mist because people
> are far more interested in talking about
> the problems than actually taking some
> action. rpa provides the infrastructure
> needed to prevent the above from happening
> via its stated procedures with respect to
> test suites and api versioning.

RPA could provide a very good answer to this problem. But no matter what
happens with RPA, RAA is still the public face of Ruby libraries. It is
current state it has some obvious deficiencies. It was my understanding that
this was being worked on by someone, but I'm not sure who or where things
are with this (or perhaps the effort has stalled or never even got
started)... I'm really not sure. But, I posted this in an effort find out by
raising (once again) the problem.

Curt

> so the question really is, which bright
> spark is going to put some actual work into
> this. mauricio proved that developing the
> infrastructure was a job for a single devoted
> person. keeping the infrastructure going
> requires people to actually take an interest
> in ruby's future, and actually *do something*.
>
> Alex
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005
>