From: Mark Probert <probertm@...>
Date: 2005-03-04T02:21:21+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA Status & The Problem with Ruby

Hi .. 

 On Thursday 03 March 2005 05:14, Francis Hwang wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a given that just because a certain library gets
> knighted as part of an "extended stdlib" that it will automatically be
> well-maintained and well-documented. In fact, there are more than a few
> libs in the _actual_ stdlib that have fairly crummy documentation even
> today.
>
The "usual" way around this are standards and review.  If a library fails to 
meets its obligations, poor documentation or whatever, then perhaps it 
shouldn't make it into the general release.  I am not sure how this would 
work for Ruby though.  Certainly, the place to start is the current library.

The second part about the libraries is one of use.  There are certain 
libraries that I use all the time and couldn't live without.  There are 
others that are essential to me every now and then (including my own ones).  
And there are others that are just cool to look at and get ideas from.

It is the now-and-then libraries that would seem to be the biggest issue.  For 
example, if I need an database wrapper class, what am I going to use?  How do 
I find out which one suits my needs?  Documentation is a big part, the honest 
comments from users to whom these libraries are essential is another.  

So, perhaps the best initial first step is to provide a user-feedback option 
to RAA and rate the programs a la Tucows or similar.

Sorry for the ramble ..

-- 
-mark.  (probertm at acm dot org)
Author of a few unused, badly documented libraries