From: Phillip Gawlowski Date: 2011-09-15T18:55:46+09:00 Subject: Re: Get interpreter path On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > So long as I always use gems, sure. Which is a given on Ruby 1.9, since RubyGems is part of the standard lib since 1.9's release. If it isn't available, it's because the distributor broke Ruby (more or less). And on 1.8.x, you can pretty much assume RubyGems as a given, as well, since its the canonical way to acquire programs and libraries. Pure users (as in: "Not Ruby developers") might not have it, but you can provide the RubyGems source and have it be installed in such a case. > It's probably the user's problem if they delete the Ruby interpreter > in the location where it was initially installed. It's definitely their problem! Consider a Ruby that is compiled by hand, and doesn't support all language/OS features: The possible iterations of potential Ruby variations is staggering. :) > That's true so long as I don't try to run anything on such Ruby installation. Even then it is true: You aren't responsible for features that Apple (or MS, or Debian, or...) decides to include and make available to their users. If those implementations are buggy, you can provide workarounds ("install Ruby again"), but certainly don't have to bend over backwards to make something work. > But since Ruby works on Windows it should work as a standalone > application on OS X too. Keep in mind that Windows and Mac OS X are *very* different OSes! This assumption does not necessarily hold true. Apple includes Ruby (And an outdated one at that, as Apple is wont to do), since they use it themselves. -- Phillip Gawlowski gplus.to/phgaw | twitter.com/phgaw A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start, and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.               -- Leibniz