From: Justin Collins <justincollins@...>
Date: 2009-02-03T07:36:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Native gem roundup!

Tom Cloyd wrote:
> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>> I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using. 
>> In general it seems like most native extensions fall into two 
>> categories:
>>
>> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick, 
>> nokogiri
>> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a particular 
>> algorithm in a native language or call a library for the same reasons
>>
>> And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both 
>> categories.
>>
>> Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more 
>> of them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm 
>> concerned about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9 
>> and JRuby do almost as much to speed Ruby up.
>>
>> Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions 
>> for things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the 
>> future for both the standard and alternative implementations.
>>
>> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them or 
>> why do they exist?
>>
>> - Charlie
>>
>>
> Charlie,
>
> As someone with a social survey research background, I want to advise 
> you that this is an extremely poor way to get your question answered. 
> If you're not serious about getting a good answer, your request is 
> very close to list-noise. If you are, then you need a decent sample OR 
> all the parametric data (i.e., don't sample it - get it all).
>
> I wonder why you don't go after the latter? Is there someway to get 
> download counts for various gems? I realize there are hundreds, but 
> THAT would be useful data.
>
> Alternatively, you could use the gems themselves as your population. 
> Draw a sample of them, as samples of serious Ruby code (and get at 
> least 35, and preferably much more than that), then scrape from them 
> the gems THEY use, and get a frequency distribution from that sample.
>
> In terms of bang for buck, I'd go with the latter alternative, 'cause 
> THAT data would actually be something from which you might reasonably 
> infer something.
>
> What you're doing with this list-post nonsense is akin to putting a 
> box of surveys on the sidewalk, with a sign "please fill one out", 
> then taking your results and thinking they actually MEAN something. 
> Believe me, they do not.
>
> Hope this helps the "cause".
>
> t.
>


There is always this:

http://gems.rubyforge.org/stats.html

-Justin