# \[ANN\] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement
**URL:** https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879
**Category:** ruby-talk
**Created:** [24 February 2003 21:45 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879 "2003-02-24T21:45:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Berger\_Daniel2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Berger_Daniel2)
#### Post date: [24 February 2003 21:45 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/1 "2003-02-24T21:45:56Z")
I think once Ruby Central, Inc gets tax exempt status folks could start
contributing to it (that’s what I’m waiting for anyway). Then, that money
could be used in the manner you suggest - dole out small amounts for various
projects. It could also be used to offset conference setup costs, plane
tickets for Matz, or whatever. This might require a committee (yikes!) to
determine who gets what.
In some ways this would be analogous to the Perl Foundation. However, I
think that giving all the money to one or two folks, as the Perl Foundation
did, would be a mistake for the Ruby community. Ruby is behind Perl in the
package/module race, and I think would benefit from a large number of
smaller projects than hardcore development of one or two large projects
(with the possible exception of Cardinal). At this point in time, at least.
We could always combine the bulletin board approach with this as well, I
think.
Regards,
Dan
> **···**
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal E. Fulton [[mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com](mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com)]
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: “Robert Feldt” [feldt@ce.chalmers.se](mailto:feldt@ce.chalmers.se)
> > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org)
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement…
> >
> > > Ps. David: Great news about the non-profit org. I guess
> > > things haven’t
> > > really taken form yet but do you also plan to sponsor Ruby
> > > projects? I
> > > should be looking for a job soon so if you have a bag of
> > > money… 🙂
> >
> > Ha! Good idea, Robert, but stand in line. 😉
> >
> > Seriously, I think it will be a long time before
> > this sort of thing happens. (Prove me wrong, please!!)
> >
> > But here’s another idea I’ve thought of.
> >
> > There have been times I wanted a certain (often small)
> > piece of software but didn’t want to write it myself.
> >
> > I have wished that I could give someone “x” dollars to
> > do it for me (for sufficiently small values of x).
> >
> > Of course, the hourly rate might not come to what a
> > programmer usually makes. But look at all the work
> > that people do for free. 🙂
> >
> > In any case, I wouldn’t be opposed to a little
> > bulletin board where people could swap small amounts
> > of money for small amounts of work.
> >
> > Hal
---
### Author:  [@Joel\_VanderWerf1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Joel_VanderWerf1)
#### Post date: [24 February 2003 21:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/2 "2003-02-24T21:54:19Z")
Berger, Daniel wrote:
> In some ways this would be analogous to the Perl Foundation. However, I
> think that giving all the money to one or two folks, as the Perl Foundation
> did, would be a mistake for the Ruby community. Ruby is behind Perl in the
> package/module race, and I think would benefit from a large number of
> smaller projects than hardcore development of one or two large projects
> (with the possible exception of Cardinal). At this point in time, at least.
Seems to me the small projects are going to get developed as people need
them. What may need more funding are the quantum leaps, like cardinal,
and especially rite.
---
### Author:  [@Daniel\_P\_Zepeda](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_P_Zepeda)
#### Post date: [25 February 2003 06:35 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/3 "2003-02-25T06:35:27Z")
> > From: Hal E. Fulton [[mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com](mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com)]
> > From: “Robert Feldt” [feldt@ce.chalmers.se](mailto:feldt@ce.chalmers.se)
> > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org)
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement…
> >
> > > Ps. David: Great news about the non-profit org. I guess
> > > things haven’t
> > > really taken form yet but do you also plan to sponsor Ruby
> > > projects? I
> > > should be looking for a job soon so if you have a bag of
> > > money… 🙂
\> \> In some ways this would be analogous to the Perl Foundation. However, I \> think that giving all the money to one or two folks, as the Perl Foundation \> did, would be a mistake for the Ruby community.
—\>Ruby is behind Perl in the package/module race, \<----
You know, I think folks need to stop thinking that way. I’m sure you remember
the very long discussion that was generated when David Alan Black (I think)
asked what modules/packages were missing. I don’t remember even one
contribution, other than my own, of things that were really missing from RAA or
already present in the Ruby core. In fact, I think it was you Daniel that
pointed out that the things I thought were missing were actually already
available as well. IIRC, the original question was “What libraries/modules
are missing?” and the answer seemed to be “Nothing, we just need to package up,
document what is already there in a better, easier to understand/use format.”
IMHO, Ruby is _not_ behind in the race, just because there isn’t umpteen
thousand different modules/libraries in RAA as compared to CPAN, it’s just that
Perl _needed_ that many extra modules to equal what Ruby already has. Now I’m
not suggesting that there isn’t a need to keep developing new modules, but
again, I just don’t think Ruby is _behind_ so we should stop _saying_ that, and
possibly putting people off Ruby for a reason that isn’t there.
> **···**
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:45:56 +0900 “Berger, Daniel” [djberge@qwest.com](mailto:djberge@qwest.com) wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > and I think would benefit from a large number of
> > smaller projects than hardcore development of one or two large projects
> > (with the possible exception of Cardinal). At this point in time, at least.
> >
> > We could always combine the bulletin board approach with this as well, I
> > think.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
>
> –
> Daniel P. Zepeda
---
### Author:  [@Chad\_Fowler3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Fowler3)
#### Post date: [25 February 2003 15:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/4 "2003-02-25T15:57:27Z")
> > > From: Hal E. Fulton [[mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com](mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com)]
> > > From: “Robert Feldt” [feldt@ce.chalmers.se](mailto:feldt@ce.chalmers.se)
> > > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org)
> > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement…
> > >
> > > > Ps. David: Great news about the non-profit org. I guess
> > > > things haven’t
> > > > really taken form yet but do you also plan to sponsor Ruby
> > > > projects? I
> > > > should be looking for a job soon so if you have a bag of
> > > > money… 🙂
>
> \> \> In some ways this would be analogous to the Perl Foundation. However, I \> think that giving all the money to one or two folks, as the Perl
Foundation
> > did, would be a mistake for the Ruby community.
>
> —\>Ruby is behind Perl in the package/module race, \<----
>
> You know, I think folks need to stop thinking that way. I’m sure you
> remember
> the very long discussion that was generated when David Alan Black (I
> think)
> asked what modules/packages were missing. I don’t remember even one
> contribution, other than my own, of things that were really missing from
> RAA or
> already present in the Ruby core. In fact, I think it was you Daniel that
> pointed out that the things I thought were missing were actually already
> available as well. IIRC, the original question was “What
> libraries/modules
> are missing?” and the answer seemed to be “Nothing, we just need to
> package up,
> document what is already there in a better, easier to understand/use
> format.”
> IMHO, Ruby is _not_ behind in the race, just because there isn’t umpteen
> thousand different modules/libraries in RAA as compared to CPAN, it’s just
> that
> Perl _needed_ that many extra modules to equal what Ruby already has. Now
> I’m
> not suggesting that there isn’t a need to keep developing new modules, but
> again, I just don’t think Ruby is _behind_ so we should stop _saying_
> that, and
> possibly putting people off Ruby for a reason that isn’t there.
>
> > and I think would benefit from a large number of
> > smaller projects than hardcore development of one or two large projects
> > (with the possible exception of Cardinal). At this point in time, at
> > least.
> >
> > We could always combine the bulletin board approach with this as well, I
> > think.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
Personally, something I’d love to see _not_ happen anymore is for Perl to
come up every time we talk about Ruby’s needs. Ruby isn’t Perl. It may
have started out as a kind of Perl replacement, but it’s grown to be much
more. I don’t mean it’s much more than Perl, of course. It’s just
different. Though it _can_ play in the same space, I don’t believe its
primary strengths are there.
I think the question for the comunity here is, “Do we want to play catchup
with Perl, or do we want to find the space where Ruby can _really_
differentiate itself and focus on that?” I’m voting for the latter. It’s
easy to copy–it’s more challenging to innovate.
Chad
> **···**
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: “Daniel P. Zepeda” [daniel@zepeda-zone.net](mailto:daniel@zepeda-zone.net)
> To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement…
>
> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:45:56 +0900 \> “Berger, Daniel” [djberge@qwest.com](mailto:djberge@qwest.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
---
### Author:  [@Berger\_Daniel2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Berger_Daniel2)
#### Post date: [25 February 2003 16:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/5 "2003-02-25T16:24:37Z")
Chad Fowler wrote:
> Personally, something I’d love to see _not_ happen anymore is for Perl to
> come up every time we talk about Ruby’s needs. Ruby isn’t Perl. It may
> have started out as a kind of Perl replacement, but it’s grown to be much
> more. I don’t mean it’s much more than Perl, of course. It’s just
> different. Though it _can_ play in the same space, I don’t believe its
> primary strengths are there.
>
> I think the question for the comunity here is, “Do we want to play catchup
> with Perl, or do we want to find the space where Ruby can _really_
> differentiate itself and focus on that?” I’m voting for the latter. It’s
> easy to copy–it’s more challenging to innovate.
>
> Chad
In this instance, I referred toPerl mainly because I couldn’t think of any
other open-source project that had setup a tax-exempt foundation (i.e. The Perl
Foundation) which took donations, then used those funds to pay individuals to
work on specific tasks for the benefit of the language. Does Linux, Python or
Apache have something like this? I don’t know. I don’t _think_ so, but I
could very well be wrong.
I didn’t mean for this to turn into a Ruby vs. Perl discussion. I was just
interested in seeing what the Perl Foundation had done right (and what it had
done wrong, if anything), and seeing if we should model ourselves after the
Perl community _in that respect_, or if we should go a different route.
Nothing to do with the language itself, per se.
Regards,
Dan
> **···**
>
> –
> a = [74, 117, 115, 116, 32, 65, 110, 111, 116, 104, 101, 114, 32, 82]
> a.push(117,98, 121, 32, 72, 97, 99, 107, 101, 114)
> puts a.pack(“C\*”)
---
### Author:  [@Michael\_Campbell1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michael_Campbell1)
#### Post date: [25 February 2003 16:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/6 "2003-02-25T16:29:52Z")
> > I think the question for the comunity here is, “Do we want to
> > play catchup
> > with Perl, or do we want to find the space where Ruby can
> > _really_
> > differentiate itself and focus on that?” I’m voting for the
> > latter. It’s
> > easy to copy–it’s more challenging to innovate.
It’s also pretty easy to innovate yourself right out of the public
eye. Ruby should be accessable; “paradigm shifting” is ok for
research and such, but you want people to USE it, and familiararity
is what keeps people from simply looking then moving on.
> **···**
>
> ## =====
>
> Yahoo IM: michael\_s\_campbell
>
> * * *
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>
> > **[Taxes: Everything you need to know about tax filing, tax refunds, and tax...](https://finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/taxes/)**
> >
> > Everything you need to file your taxes on time
---
### Author:  [@Chad\_Fowler3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Fowler3)
#### Post date: [25 February 2003 16:40 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/7 "2003-02-25T16:40:45Z")
> Chad Fowler wrote:
>
> > Personally, something I’d love to see _not_ happen anymore is for Perl
> > to
> > come up every time we talk about Ruby’s needs. Ruby isn’t Perl. It may
> > have started out as a kind of Perl replacement, but it’s grown to be
> > much
> > more. I don’t mean it’s much more than Perl, of course. It’s just
> > different. Though it _can_ play in the same space, I don’t believe its
> > primary strengths are there.
> >
> > I think the question for the comunity here is, “Do we want to play
> > catchup
> > with Perl, or do we want to find the space where Ruby can _really_
> > differentiate itself and focus on that?” I’m voting for the latter.
> > It’s
> > easy to copy–it’s more challenging to innovate.
> >
> > Chad
>
> In this instance, I referred toPerl mainly because I couldn’t think of any
> other open-source project that had setup a tax-exempt foundation (i.e. The
> Perl
> Foundation) which took donations, then used those funds to pay individuals
> to
> work on specific tasks for the benefit of the language. Does Linux,
> Python or
> Apache have something like this? I don’t know. I don’t _think_ so, but I
> could very well be wrong.
>
> I didn’t mean for this to turn into a Ruby vs. Perl discussion. I was
> just
> interested in seeing what the Perl Foundation had done right (and what it
> had
> done wrong, if anything), and seeing if we should model ourselves after
> the
> Perl community _in that respect_, or if we should go a different route.
> Nothing to do with the language itself, per se.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
Sorry, Dan. I see that this looked like I was specifically referring to you
in this case. I didn’t mean it to seem that way at all. Long day at the
office. 😉
The Perl comparison has been a general theme around here (I don’t have to
tell you that). I also don’t mean to say that the Ruby community is at all
unique in its following of another more proven/accepted product. I’d say
(regretfully) that this is a rampant problem in open source in general.
BTW,
> **[About the ASF | Apache Software Foundation](https://www.apache.org/foundation/)**
>
> Home page of The Apache Software Foundation
> **[Welcome to Python.org](https://www.python.org/psf-landing/)**
>
> The official home of the Python Programming Language
Regards,
Chad
> **···**
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: “Daniel Berger” [djberge@qwest.com](mailto:djberge@qwest.com)
> To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement…
---
### Author:  [@Chad\_Fowler3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Fowler3)
#### Post date: [25 February 2003 16:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ann-happy-birthday-ruby-and-an-announcement/4879/8 "2003-02-25T16:59:26Z")
Agreed, as long as you aren’t saying that innovation and familiarity are
_necessarily_ at odds with each other.
Ruby itself is an innovative combination of a number of familiar idioms,
creating–to use a cliche–a whole that is greater than its parts.
Chad
> **···**
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: “Michael Campbell” [michael\_s\_campbell@yahoo.com](mailto:michael_s_campbell@yahoo.com)
> To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement…
>
> > > > I think the question for the comunity here is, “Do we want to
> > > > play catchup
> > > > with Perl, or do we want to find the space where Ruby can
> > > > _really_
> > > > differentiate itself and focus on that?” I’m voting for the
> > > > latter. It’s
> > > > easy to copy–it’s more challenging to innovate.
> >
> > It’s also pretty easy to innovate yourself right out of the public
> > eye. Ruby should be accessable; “paradigm shifting” is ok for
> > research and such, but you want people to USE it, and familiararity
> > is what keeps people from simply looking then moving on.