From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-05-07T02:25:22+09:00
Subject: Re: A wishlist for a "Ruby Standard Library"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schwarz" <usenet@andreas-s.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: A wishlist for a "Ruby Standard Library"


> Guerry Semones wrote:
> > To play devil's advocate here, I'd rather have more of a CPAN type of
> > solution available, where it is easy to acquire and install modules,
> > rather than have them all bundled into the "official" distribution.
> > 
> > The whole Java experience has soured me on the concept of fat
> > distributions.
> 
> I think it would be good to have a package with only the interpreter
> (and maybe the apache module) and another package which contains a few
> of the most important libraries from a ruby-CTAN. The point is that it
> should be possible to get everything you need for 90% of the ruby
> programs on _one_ download site.

There are multiple issues here as I see it.

1. I do favor a "relatively lean and mean" Ruby installation.
Some of the "extras" should be included, but most should not.

2. I do also think that installation should be quick and 
painless and automated. raa-install is a step in the right
direction. I haven't looked at other alternatives.

3. I also think that the contents of the RAA should be kept
on the RAA site itself, instead of (in addition to?) keeping
pointers to other sites. 

4. To merge with the "PHP is popular" thread: I think it 
might be a good idea to make a "Ruby/Web" installation
(which would be a "fat" installation). This would include
eruby, REXML, and who knows what else.

Just my thoughts.

Hal