From: ghorner <gabriel.horner@...>
Date: 2011-01-05T14:50:28+09:00
Subject: Re: ripl - an irb alternative - 0.3.0 released

> Also, I don't find the argument of 5,000 vs. 270 loc very appealing:

The point in giving a loc comparison is to draw attention to the
needlessly complex approach irb has taken to doing something simple.
To understand and extend ripl, you only need to know that a shell
object exists and modules/plugins extend the shell's functionality.
Compare to irb ...

> every software acquires some "weight" as it grows older.  Even if
> ripl's core does not gain that much - the gain then simply will be in
> the plugins.  Over time the loc gap will likely shrink so this is at
> best a temporary argument. :-)

I've reimplemented most of irb's functionality at this point (see
http://github.com/cldwalker/ripl-irb and http://github.com/cldwalker/ripl-misc)
and don't see it coming anywhere close to irb's complexity and loc.

> Side note: funnily enough I have become more conservative in the
> course of time; maybe it's because I see the cost of change clearer
> nowadays.  At least I rather invest energy in new things that are
> needed than in creating replacements for things that work.  Probably
> I'm approaching grumpy old man state... :-)

What is one person's necessity is another's reinventing of a good-
enough wheel. ;-)

Gabriel