From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-01-26T13:38:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Why "like Perl"?   was: RAA proposal

Excuse me.  Trying to make RAA easier to navigate is not copying Perl.

Please look at the mock-up website:

http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html

It does *not* look like cpan.org.  The categories are not the same, and 
the interface is not the same.

The only reference to Perl in this thread was in my claiming that it's 
possible to define a set of top-level categories.  I just said that since 
other projects do it, it must be possible.


> Now, I understand the sentiment about making the RAA a bit more visible
> in an effort to promote the capabilities of the language,

The "sentiment" is to make it easier for people to find what they need.


> Shouldn't any categorization instead be focused around classes?  
> Instead of, for instance, "Multimedia", "Audio", and
> "Graphics"; would it not be better to have "Image", "Video",
> "Audio::Digital", "Audio::MIDI", and the like?

How are your categories significantly different from the ones I wrote?
I just groupped them under "Multimedia" in order to have fewer top-level 
categories.  It's a UI decision.  We can't make everything toplevel.


> Work on providing classes for covering all functionality, in a uniform 
> manner, instead of a smattering of uncoordinated efforts.

You think that the proposed reorganization of RAA is "a smattering of 
uncoordinated efforts"?

Better coordination is precisely what we are trying to attain.



On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:12:39PM +0900, Ryan Pavlik wrote:

> I've been watching the various discussions about RAA stuff, and I keep
> wondering to myself, "why does it have to be 'like Perl'?"  I understand
> the desire to get programmers---and since Ruby was written as a
> successor to Perl, the pool of Perl programmers seems like the natural
> source.
> 
> I must ask, though, why copy what Perl has and does?  What makes Ruby
> superior to Perl are the things _unlike_ Perl.  The holdovers are being
> discouraged (punctuation variables and the like).  So why blindly copy
> what Perl has in an effort to appease a group who may not be happy no
> matter what you do?  You can make Ruby and its community more and more
> like Perl until it's equivalent to Perl, but then it's not Ruby
> anymore---and probably no one will be happy.
> 
> Now, I understand the sentiment about making the RAA a bit more visible
> in an effort to promote the capabilities of the language, and grow from
> there.  But most of the categorization I've seen hasn't been very
> Ruby-like.
> 
> Ruby is all about writing classes and using objects.  Therefore,
> the proposed application-oriented categorization strikes me as
> illogical.  Shouldn't any categorization instead be focused around
> classes?  Instead of, for instance, "Multimedia", "Audio", and
> "Graphics"; would it not be better to have "Image", "Video",
> "Audio::Digital", "Audio::MIDI", and the like?  Work on providing
> classes for covering all functionality, in a uniform manner, instead of
> a smattering of uncoordinated efforts.
> 
> When it comes to names, lots of things are available (assume .com,
> .net, or .org)..."ruby-aa", "rubyclass", "rubylib", "rubytome", etc.
> 
> Anyway, just my 0b11.
> 
> -- 
> Ryan Pavlik <rpav@users.sf.net>
> 
> "What part of this whole villain thing do you not
>  understand?"
> 

-- 
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant.  Math Dept.
University of Maryland.  (301) 405-5137