Damn - I knew I was gonna get called on that. I should have phrased it
better - my apologies. What I really had in mind when I said that were some
of the larger modules and/or frameworks, such as Net::SSH::Perl, Mason, an
MS Structured Storage interface, etc. I didn’t mean your avergage 1k
module.
Maybe we should concentrate on one or two projects then - I don’t know. I
was just sorta whipping the idea out there. Of course, this is all moot
until Ruby Central, Inc gets tax exempt status anyway (for me at least).
/lart /me
Regards,
Dan
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel P. Zepeda [mailto:daniel@zepeda-zone.net]> > 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.