From: dblack@... Date: 2003-01-23T10:36:31+09:00 Subject: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on? Hi -- We've all heard this: "Ruby is great, but it doesn't have the equivalent of CPAN." I'm not saying it's not true... but I'm getting worried that we're settling into a culture where Ruby is "that great language that doesn't have the equivalent of CPAN," and that as that reputation spreads, it's going to be harder to shake it off later -- even when lots more modules have been written. So: is there a process by which we can identify *exactly* what all the missing modules are? And then write them? :-) The role of CPAN in all this needs to be kept in perspective. There's no obligation on [the] Ruby[ community]'s part to duplicate CPAN module by module. In fact, it's quite interesting to look at other archives, such as . Also, I would advocate not getting embroiled in issues of naming, specifically hierarchical module naming (text/soundex, algorithms/sort/qsort, etc.). The main thing is for software to come into existence, and for its availability to be publicized. If we try to work out in advance questions like who gets to write the authoritative x/y/z module, etc., the chances are fairly good that nothing will ever get done. So, all you almost-satisfied Ruby programmers, what's missing? :-) David -- David Alan Black home: dblack@candle.superlink.net work: blackdav@shu.edu Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav