From: Simon Cozens <simon@...>
Date: 2003-03-02T09:28:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Anything like Class::DBI from Perl


Thanks, all. This thread has made me realise that any comp.lang.ruby
thread can be expressed as a fugue in eight voices. For instance:

1: Hey, does Ruby have the equivalent of Perl library A?
2: I've never used Perl library A, but Ruby has B, which must be the same.
1: Thanks, but that's nothing like A.
3: Well, I've never used A either, but I'm working on C, which is a bit like 
   B.
1: Thanks, but that's nothing like A.
4: Are you sure that Ruby doesn't have anything like Perl library A?
5: I'm sure there's something on the RAA, but I can't find it right now.
6: What we need is a more categorical way to organise the libraries that
   Ruby has.
3: Why does everything end up being a Perl versus Ruby discussion?
4: It doesn't, but I'd like to see something like A as well.
7: There's something a bit like A called Alfalfa, but it has no
   documentation at present.
6: That's what I'm saying. Ruby needs stringent documentation standards.
8: Of course, documentation for library D is available in Japanese, and
   this is a little like B.
1: Thanks, but that's nothing like A.
4: So everyone has to learn Japanese to use Ruby?
6: No, what we need is a standard intermediate language for documentation.
3: Well, C is already available and is fully documented.
1: Thanks, but that's nothing like A.
4: Is Perl faster than Ruby anyway?
5: Why are we trying to make equivalents of Perl libraries? Why aren't we
   leading the field?
1: Thanks, but all I wanted was a library like A.
....

-- 
Ever wake up feeling like a null pointer? -Allan Pratt