From: Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@...>
Date: 2005-05-28T20:56:49+09:00
Subject: Re: RI Conceptional Showstopper Bug.

Hello Eric,

EH> On 27 May 2005, at 22:15, Lothar Scholz wrote:

>> Hello ,
>>
>> Looked further into it and the situation is more worse then i
>> expected. As RI does absolutely not handle the ruby key feature of
>> open classes.

EH> I'm not sure this is a good thing.  Library A extends String with a
EH> handy method, but the user isn't using library A, and the user is
EH> trying to use that handy method...

Thats why we need tagged sets of documentation that can be added and
removed easily. Having a good command line documentation tool (or at
least any kind of documentation tool) is important.

EH> As it is, ri cannot tell you where a method came from, so throwing in
EH> methods from extensions will lead to much frustration as you try to
EH> track down which files you need to require to get which methods.

EH> ri was designed to be clear and simple.  I worry that extra  
EH> information may end up being too much or completely missed.

So it is a just an unprofessional toy. Low quality. You get what you
pay for: nothing.

Sorry but the world out there is not as simple. And i
think many people who look at ruby simply leave it because with an
attitude like this it really looks like a toy. It's not clear, not
simple and it does not work for me and for thousands of other people
who are think that lack of documentation is still a big missing
of ruby. So whats now ?

>> Thinks like this are going to make me tired.
>> Easy of implementation seems to have always a higher priority then
>> correctness
>> or fullfilling requirements.

EH> ri's original requirements seem to have been something like "Create a
EH> command-line tool to give handy access to documentation for core  
EH> Ruby".  It performs exceedingly well at this.

No. This was not the requirement.

EH> I also don't believe you have a reason to complain about  
EH> 'correctness' or 'fullfilling requirements' when you did not pay for
EH> the product.  People typically release for free what *they* need,
EH> and understand it may need to be adapted by others to fit other needs.

I see this (and almost any things we both talked before on this list) very
different from you.

I think it is a huge failure of the ruby core team to accept a tool
of this low quality and put it as one of the core technologies into the
ruby core. But i'm too tired to talk about this issues again and again.
Maybe we should look at better working communities, for example Guido
still does not bundle pychecker (a good tool) with the language
runtime as it is not of high enough quality. I think the ruby people
should have the same high quality commitment as python.

The main problem is that if someone else jumps in it is 100'th of hours
of work, while a little bit better and more general implementation would
took just a few 10'th of hours. Thats whats so disappointing about all
this.

-- 
 Best regards,                        emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
 Lothar Scholz                        http://www.ruby-ide.com
 CTO Scriptolutions                   Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's