From: Pascal GUICHARD Date: 2005-04-17T08:00:27+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby Libraries (was Re: Re:) James, I agree with you for almost your comments. First, I wouldn't discuss here if I were not intested in ruby and somewhat searching the right libs, andd maybe to go for some solutoins. I find too that lot of libraries are of caliber as you say. What is interesting me in twisted-python is that it is a networking framework for almost any protocol, and also asynchronous communications => EAI, ESB sujects But I know also that it a big amount of code / work done, so if not finding a ruby equivalent, it could be interesting to profit of this work (and I mean all work around other perl/python libraries) by using a bridge : for me, it doesn't sound silly, but only a practical view of facts, it was and it it is no offense also. The fact is I didn't know of perl::POE, but at first sight seems in the same vein as twited-python, and yes it would be interesting to have such a ruby framework (I didn't find one) And last, about ruby language itself, I didn't said that there are good:great ruby projects, at the contrary. But if you want to put it in the enterprise, it must have as real future, and think what if the worse was to happen : matz, for one reason or another, stops to work/evolve ruby ? P. Guichard -----Message d'origine----- De : James Edward Gray II [mailto:james@grayproductions.net] Envoye : dimanche 17 avril 2005 00:28 A : ruby-talk ML Objet : Ruby Libraries (was Re: Re:) On Apr 16, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Pascal GUICHARD wrote: > The fact is that I am a little bit disappointed by the libraries, and > the > evolution : I find Ruby libraries to be of a generally high caliber. I agree that we're still short in a few areas, but that seems to be shrinking all the time. I think the real issue here is finding the good libraries. The RAA isn't perfect for this yet and changes have been discussed here in the past. Still I'm confused by what you hope to gain from a blanket statement like this? Do you want us to show you what libraries we consider essential? In what areas? Remember that this is a largely open source community. Jump right in and help us fill in the holes! > But on the hand, another lot of projects/libraries are present but > somewhat > outdated at best, going even to deprecated/inoperatives such as the > ruby-python bridge, that IMO > Should be one of the most well maintained because of all > work/llibraries > that it would make accessible, such the library I mentionned : > twisted-python, and also a lot of python work. No offense intended, but this seems silly to me. If you want to program in Python, go for Python. Firing up Ruby to bridge to a very similar language seems odd to me and I have no use for a library that helps me do that. Perhaps what is really needed here is a Ruby port of Twisted. That makes a lot more sense to me. If that's really the goal here, let's create a solid Ruby solution, not hack together a strange Python bridge. I'm not familiar with Twisted, but I just looked over the site a little. Is it a mainly a networking library? It seemed to include an event loop as well. Is it anything like Perl's POE? If I'm understanding any of this correctly, I can say that I personally would love to see a good Ruby framework like this. Start the project on Rubyforge and I might even sign on to help. > So compare the latter scheme for Java, with the present one for ruby > that is > maintained and evolving by only one man, even though as much brilliant > as > you want. I really don't feel Ruby is evolving from one man. Matz may control the language, but that doesn't tell a fraction of the whole story. Look at some of the great libraries in Ruby's standard library that weren't created by Matz. What about projects like RubyGems, Rake, Builder, Redcloth, Needle, Rails... I could go on and on! What about Dave Thomas's work to bring Ruby to the masses? One man may have given us the canvas, and we're more than grateful for that, but I doubt he's even the lead painter. James Edward Gray II