# RAA proposal **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [26 January 2003 01:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311 "2003-01-26T01:48:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 01:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/1 "2003-01-26T01:48:02Z")
Hello all, Mark and I had a conversation on the categorization of RAA modules, and I think we (well, actually Mark) came up with something good. I would also like to present a proposal for a RAA interface. Both of these things are demonstrated in the following website: [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html) First of all, the top-level categories would be: 1. Business 2. Database 3. Data Structures 4. Science 5. User Interface 6. Networking & Web 7. Development 8. Text Processing (Language Processing?) 9. Security 10. Media These categories seem to be complete, intuitive and yet not so many as to clutter the page. A more complete description (including subcategories) is included at the end of this message. This is my idea for the navigation of the site (it’s best if you have the mock up site in front of you as you read this): A navigation bar on top with the main categories (Lib, App, etc). Each with subcategories (Lib/Networking, etc). Each of the main categories has a “home page”. My mock up depics the home page of “Library”. The home page only shows the subcategories. Selecting a category would produce pages similar to the current ones in RAA, except that the navigation bar would stay. Clicking on "Library" would take you to the Library home page. “Recent Updates” is now a right-bar. It is still very visible, but it no longer inhibits the visibility of the main categories. Here is the more complete set of categories (Mark, tell me if I got something wrong): 1. Business e-commerce finance 2. Data Structures Algorithm Array Binary Enumerable Graph Hash Queue Stack Time Tree 3. Database MySQL Postgresql 4. Development Support Benchmark CVS Compression Debugging Design Patterns Integrated Development Environment Internationalization I18N Operating System Interfaces Be BSD Dos Linux Mac Solaris Windows Testing 5. Media Audio Graphics Icons MIDI Mp3 Speech 6. Networking & Web Distributed Computing Mail and Usenet News World Wide Web CGI Jabber 7. Science Biology Math Computer Science AI Languages C Forth Lisp Lua Python Physics Chemistry 8. Security Cryptography 9. Text Processing PDF regular expressions yaml 10. User Interfaces Fox Gtk Qt Text (curses, etc.?) Tk Wx X Windows Cheers, > **···** > > – > Daniel Carrera > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Freeze2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@Jim\_Freeze2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Freeze2)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 01:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/2 "2003-01-26T01:57:28Z")
> Hello all, > > Mark and I had a conversation on the categorization of RAA modules, and I > think we (well, actually Mark) came up with something good. I would also > like to present a proposal for a RAA interface. Both of these things are > demonstrated in the following website: > > [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html) > > First of all, the top-level categories would be: > > 1. Business > 2. Database > 3. Data Structures > 4. Science > 5. User Interface > 6. Networking & Web > 7. Development > 8. Text Processing (Language Processing?) > 9. Security > 10. Media > > These categories seem to be complete, intuitive and yet not so many as to > clutter the page. A more complete description (including subcategories) > is included at the end of this message. Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come up with a comprehensive top level list. Below is a trimmed list of the the top level of the bsd ports: biology ftp mbone shells cad games misc sysutils multimedia textproc comms graphics net converters news databases palm www deskutils irc x11 Templates x11 Tools archivers editors print astro emulators lang audio finance mail science benchmarks math security Some of these you mention. Others, I think some could be added to your list above. > **···** > > On Sunday, 26 January 2003 at 10:48:02 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > Here is the more complete set of categories (Mark, tell me if I got > > something wrong): > > > > 1. Business > > e-commerce > > finance > > > > 2. Data Structures > > Algorithm > > Array > > Binary > > Enumerable > > Graph > > Hash > > Queue > > Stack > > Time > > Tree > > > > 3. Database > > MySQL > > Postgresql > > > > 4. Development Support > > Benchmark > > CVS > > Compression > > Debugging > > Design Patterns > > Integrated Development Environment > > Internationalization > > I18N > > Operating System Interfaces > > Be > > BSD > > Dos > > Linux > > Mac > > Solaris > > Windows > > Testing > > > > 5. Media > > Audio > > Graphics > > Icons > > MIDI > > Mp3 > > Speech > > > > 6. Networking & Web > > Distributed Computing > > Mail and Usenet News > > World Wide Web > > CGI > > Jabber > > > > 7. Science > > Biology > > Math > > Computer Science > > AI > > Languages > > C > > Forth > > Lisp > > Lua > > Python > > Physics > > Chemistry > > > > 8. Security > > Cryptography > > > > 9. Text Processing > > PDF > > regular expressions > > yaml > > > > 10. User Interfaces > > Fox > > Gtk > > Qt > > Text (curses, etc.?) > > Tk > > Wx > > X Windows > > ## – Jim Freeze > > Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity. > – Robert Firth ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_DeMello1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3be4f8/32.png) [@Martin\_DeMello1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Martin_DeMello1)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 08:53 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/3 "2003-01-26T08:53:04Z")
> [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html) Nice! Beautiful icons too. > First of all, the top-level categories would be: > > 1. Business > 2. Database > 3. Data Structures > 4. Science > 5. User Interface > 6. Networking & Web > 7. Development > 8. Text Processing (Language Processing?) By Language Processing I take it you mean the stuff that Perl/CPAN categorises under Lingua::? > 1. Security > 2. Media And I agree with whoever said that ‘Game Development’ ought to be a toplevel category. martin > **···** > > Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 02:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/4 "2003-01-26T02:17:12Z")
> Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come > up with a comprehensive top level list. Sure we can. The Perl guys do, other projects do, why can’t we? We just need generic top-level categories. Perhaps add a “Misc” category for stuff that truly doesn’t fit anywhere. > Below is a trimmed list > of the the top level of the bsd ports: > > biology ftp mbone shells > cad games misc sysutils > multimedia textproc comms graphics > net converters news > databases palm www deskutils > irc x11 Templates > x11 Tools archivers editors > print astro emulators lang > audio finance mail science > benchmarks math security But all the libraries here _can_ be put into the categories above. Below I have put all of these in the categories above. The only items that I didn’t fit into those categories are: - Things that are _apps_, not _libs_ : games, emulators, sysutils, deskutils, editors - Things I don’t understand: converters, mbone - Misc. Naturally, the Apps section will have its own categories. Each element from the list above is denoted with a \<–. Business Finance ← Security ← Science ← Astro ← Biology ← Computer Science Cad ← Math Media Multimedia ← Audio ← Graphics ← Networking Net ← IRC ← FTP ← News ← WWW ← Mail ← Databases ← User Interfaces X11 ← Print ← Shells ← Development Benchmarks ← Comms ← Palm ← Tools ← Templates ← Archivers ← Text Processing ← Lang > **···** > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:28AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > Some of these you mention. Others, I think some could be added > > to your list above. > > > > > Here is the more complete set of categories (Mark, tell me if I got > > > something wrong): > > > > > > 1. Business > > > e-commerce > > > finance > > > > > > 2. Data Structures > > > Algorithm > > > Array > > > Binary > > > Enumerable > > > Graph > > > Hash > > > Queue > > > Stack > > > Time > > > Tree > > > > > > 3. Database > > > MySQL > > > Postgresql > > > > > > 4. Development Support > > > Benchmark > > > CVS > > > Compression > > > Debugging > > > Design Patterns > > > Integrated Development Environment > > > Internationalization > > > I18N > > > Operating System Interfaces > > > Be > > > BSD > > > Dos > > > Linux > > > Mac > > > Solaris > > > Windows > > > Testing > > > > > > 5. Media > > > Audio > > > Graphics > > > Icons > > > MIDI > > > Mp3 > > > Speech > > > > > > 6. Networking & Web > > > Distributed Computing > > > Mail and Usenet News > > > World Wide Web > > > CGI > > > Jabber > > > > > > 7. Science > > > Biology > > > Math > > > Computer Science > > > AI > > > Languages > > > C > > > Forth > > > Lisp > > > Lua > > > Python > > > Physics > > > Chemistry > > > > > > 8. Security > > > Cryptography > > > > > > 9. Text Processing > > > PDF > > > regular expressions > > > yaml > > > > > > 10. User Interfaces > > > Fox > > > Gtk > > > Qt > > > Text (curses, etc.?) > > > Tk > > > Wx > > > X Windows > > – > Daniel Carrera > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Freeze2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@Jim\_Freeze2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Freeze2)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 03:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/5 "2003-01-26T03:14:13Z")
> > Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come > > up with a comprehensive top level list. > > Sure we can. The Perl guys do, other projects do, why can’t we? > We just need generic top-level categories. Perhaps add a “Misc” category > for stuff that truly doesn’t fit anywhere. Well, I am not too quick on my feet when it comes to generating lists like this, but I must say that it looks like you have a good start. > But all the libraries here _can_ be put into the categories above. Below > I have put all of these in the categories above. The only items that I > didn’t fit into those categories are: > > - Things that are _apps_, not _libs_ : > games, emulators, sysutils, deskutils, editors So are you suggesting there are no game libraries. Where would you put an RPG engine? > - Things I don’t understand: converters, mbone Ahh yes, I think mbone is a sound library. > - Misc. > > Naturally, the Apps section will have its own categories. > > Each element from the list above is denoted with a \<–. > > Business > Finance ← > > Security ← > > Science ← > Astro ← > Biology ← > Computer Science > Cad ← ``` Hmm, intresting place to put CAD... ``` > Math > > Media > Multimedia ← > Audio ← > Graphics ← > Is this causing too many layers? Should > graphics be a top level? > > Networking > Net ← > IRC ← > FTP ← > News ← > WWW ← > Mail ← > > Databases ← > > User Interfaces > X11 ← > Print ← > Shells ← > Can items be double listed? E.G, shells under > languages and interfaces? > **···** > > On Sunday, 26 January 2003 at 11:17:12 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:28AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > > Development > > Benchmarks ← > > Comms ← > > Palm ← > > Tools ← > > Templates ← > > Archivers ← > > > > Text Processing ← > > Lang > > ## – Jim Freeze > > If you’re not very clever you should be conciliatory. > – Benjamin Disraeli ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Pavlik1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@Ryan\_Pavlik1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ryan_Pavlik1)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 04:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/6 "2003-01-26T04:12:39Z")
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. > **···** > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:17:12 +0900 Daniel Carrera [dcarrera@math.umd.edu](mailto:dcarrera@math.umd.edu) wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:57:28AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > > > Hmm… this was discussed some time back. I’m not sure we can come > > > up with a comprehensive top level list. > > > > Sure we can. The Perl guys do, other projects do, why can’t we? > > We just need generic top-level categories. Perhaps add a “Misc” > > category for stuff that truly doesn’t fit anywhere. > > – > Ryan Pavlik [rpav@users.sf.net](mailto:rpav@users.sf.net) > > “What part of this whole villain thing do you not > understand?” ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 03:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/7 "2003-01-26T03:27:21Z")
> So are you suggesting there are no game libraries. > Where would you put an RPG engine? HHmmm… perhaps media. SDL (Simple Direct Media Layer) would go under media too. > > Computer Science > > Cad ← > > ``` > Hmm, intresting place to put CAD... > > ``` Well. In retrospect, yeah, it doesn’t fit there. Someone else can pick another spot. I certainly don’t think that CAD should be toplevel. > > Media > > Multimedia ← > > Audio ← > > Graphics ← > > Is this causing too many layers? Should > > graphics be a top level? I think we should keep the number of top layers to a minimum. I’ve seen Graphics under “Media” lots of times. I think it fits well there. > > User Interfaces > > X11 ← > > Print ← > > Shells ← > > Can items be double listed? E.G, shells under > > languages and interfaces? I think we should allow that. Take a look at the mock-up website: [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html) I think it really illustrates why minimizing top-level categories is a good user interface decision. > **···** > > – > Daniel Carrera > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137 ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 04:38 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/8 "2003-01-26T04:38:11Z")
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](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html) It does _not_ look like [cpan.org](http://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](mailto: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 ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Sawyer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Tom\_Sawyer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tom_Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 04:40 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/9 "2003-01-26T04:40:47Z")
AGREED i’ll take it a bit futher. Strive to do more, be more, and learn from others. It would be quite something if the RAA could organize a giant hiearchy of Class/Module structure for its libraries. (Applications are another matter). throughout the hiearchy there would be points of install where the library needs to be raainstall’d. ::TextProc ::Markup:: ::YAML ::YAML4R \<— install point you can take this down to the nitty gritty (read ::load after YAML4R) and have the RAA also serve as a reasonable source of documentation for everything! now how do you get programmers to play nice? that’s another question. > **···** > > On Saturday 25 January 2003 09:12 pm, 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. > > – > tom sawyer, aka transami > [transami@transami.net](mailto:transami@transami.net) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Garamond](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/47e85d/32.png) [@David\_Garamond](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Garamond)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 07:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/10 "2003-01-26T07:37:10Z")
Ryan Pavlik wrote: > I must ask, though, why copy what Perl has and does? What makes Ruby > superior to Perl are the things _unlike_ Perl. that doesn’t mean all things perl are bad. what makes ruby fun and approachable to many is that lots of cool things from perl are copied. what makes ruby superior to perl are also things that ruby does _like_ perl, but _better_. i’m not saying that we should copycat CPAN. but when people come to this group from time to time asking about a CPAN-like beast, that ought to make us think about what features CPAN has that RAA currently doesn’t. and can we make a better cpan than CPAN (just like ruby is in many aspects a better Perl than perl). > **···** > > – > dave ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Freeze2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@Jim\_Freeze2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Freeze2)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 04:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/11 "2003-01-26T04:00:55Z")
Wow, nice mock-up. I like the icons. > **···** > > On Sunday, 26 January 2003 at 12:27:21 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > Take a look at the mock-up website: > > > > [http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html) > > ## – Jim Freeze > > This sentence contradicts itself – no actually it doesn’t. > – Hofstadter ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Sawyer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Tom\_Sawyer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tom_Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 04:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/12 "2003-01-26T04:44:18Z")
its a nice mock-up. well done! don’t take what Ryan said as a dis on what you’ve proposed. i think he only means to take it even further, and not directly regarding your contribution here. i beleive he refers to whole of the conversation in general. but i guess i should not talk for him… > **···** > > On Saturday 25 January 2003 09:38 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > 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](http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/raa/index.html) > > – > tom sawyer, aka transami > [transami@transami.net](mailto:transami@transami.net) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Alan\_Black1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/278dde/32.png) [@David\_Alan\_Black1](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Alan_Black1)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 05:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/13 "2003-01-26T05:32:57Z")
Hi – > **···** > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Tom Sawyer wrote: > > > ::TextProc > > ::Markup:: > > ::YAML > > People might wonder about that when they find out what YAML stands > for 🙂 > > David > > – > David Alan Black > home: [dblack@candle.superlink.net](mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net) > work: blackdav@shu.edu > Web: [http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav](http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav) ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Chen2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@Alan\_Chen2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Alan_Chen2)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 06:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/14 "2003-01-26T06:09:38Z")
I’ve always liked how freshmeat allows projects to be described with multiple topic tags. This approach helps to provide results with different mental search patterns. > **···** > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:27:21PM +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > > So are you suggesting there are no game libraries. > > > Where would you put an RPG engine? > > > > HHmmm… perhaps media. SDL (Simple Direct Media Layer) would go under > > media too. > > – > Alan Chen > Digikata Computing > [http://digikata.com](http://digikata.com) ---
**Author:** ![Patrick\_Narkinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e8c25b/32.png) [@Patrick\_Narkinsky](https://rubytalk.org/u/Patrick_Narkinsky)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 13:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/15 "2003-01-26T13:50:11Z")
> i’m not saying that we should copycat CPAN. but when people come to > this group from time to time asking about a CPAN-like beast, that > ought to make us think about what features CPAN has that RAA currently > doesn’t. and can we make a better cpan than CPAN (just like ruby is in > many aspects a better Perl than perl). I have to say that, for me as someone who remembers perl 4 and is just starting Ruby, the big thing missing to make RAA an acceptable alternative to CPAN is not a website, but the CPAN module. I NEVER use the perl CPAN ftp-site/web-page - I always access it through the module. If someone built something equivalent to CPAN.pm, hopefully with a less kludgy interface, I think it would go a long way. Also, a not on categories: when I use the CPAN shell, I don’t care about categories, because my workflow is: > i /FTP/ > … blah … > … blah … > readme DEC::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl > … blah … > … blah … > install Net::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl > … blah … # OOPS > install Dec::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl > … random compiler errors … > … random attempts to install the latest perl … > … random additional modules required … > force install Dec::FTP::OverDecnet::Perl > … blah … > … blah … > quit The point is that I NEVER look at what category a module’s in because I always use the search function. I suspect that most people do the same - CPAN’s just too big and has too much junk to use it otherwise. If Ruby wants to build a better CPAN, I would suggest a few things: 1 - A better interface. The CPAN shell is kludgy at best. 2 - Better dependency handling and management. With a good interface, I should be able to choose where to get the modules I need. 3 - Easy ways to get data into the directory. I think that sourceforge might be a better model than CPAN - CPAN followed the lead of CTAN, which was built in the days when FTP was king. We have the ability, today, to build something more interesting, more web-based, and more database-oriented. I think we should focus on that rather than on category listings - especially since the categories always seem to be more or less inappropriate anyway. Patrick > **···** > > On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 02:37 AM, David Garamond wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Wilson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Mark\_Wilson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mark_Wilson)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 05:22 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/16 "2003-01-26T05:22:33Z")
I agree with everything Daniel said 😉 I think there are two levels to the discussion: (1) a usable interface to the RAA and (2) namespacing for libraries and modules. While the two are related, in that they involve categorization within an identical subject matter domain, I think they should be treated as though they were separate because they represent solutions to different problems. On the interface issue, a range of users with differing knowledge levels about Ruby and other subjects are trying to find something useful for their specific problem; this is clearly different than an expert user managing namespaces. For user access, an information hierarchy can be helpful. For namespaces, too much hierarchy is probably unhelpful. Having said that, the interface to the RAA should not violate namespacing decisions – what this means to me is that, for example, two modules under a science related namespace should not appear under two separate categories (both should appear under science). As a specific example, a genomics module and a genomics imaging module that are both in a science namespace should both be under the science category in the standard RAA interface. Finally, RAA entries could have second (optional) category assignments that would be used for display and sorting purposes so that a single entry could appear under more than one category. I would prefer that this be displayed only upon request of the user because I think a standard “single inheritance” interface makes for greater usefulness. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Sawyer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Tom\_Sawyer](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tom_Sawyer)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 06:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/17 "2003-01-26T06:25:17Z")
funny example 😉 > **···** > > On Saturday 25 January 2003 10:32 pm, [dblack@candle.superlink.net](mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net) wrote: > > > Hi – > > > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Tom Sawyer wrote: > > > > > ::TextProc > > > :: > > > ::Markup:: > > > ::YAML > > > > People might wonder about that when they find out what YAML stands > > for 🙂 > > – > tom sawyer, aka transami > [transami@transami.net](mailto:transami@transami.net) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Wilson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Mark\_Wilson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mark_Wilson)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 06:30 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/18 "2003-01-26T06:30:13Z")
I think that if multiple topic tags are used one topic tag should be primary so that those who want to can have a view of the archive where each entry is in only one place. > **···** > > On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 01:09 AM, Alan Chen wrote: > > > [snip] > > > I’ve always liked how freshmeat allows projects to be described with > > multiple topic tags. This approach helps to provide results with > > different > > mental search patterns. > > [snip] ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Pavlik1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7c8e57/32.png) [@Ryan\_Pavlik1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ryan_Pavlik1)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 06:31 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/19 "2003-01-26T06:31:22Z")
\> don't take what Ryan said as a dis on what you've proposed. i think he \> only means to take it even further, and not directly regarding your \> contribution here. i beleive he refers to whole of the conversation in \> general. but i guess i should not talk for him... I mean this indeed. The only reason I used Daniel’s message as a starting point was the "everyone else does this so why don’t we" statement, which seemed to echo a lot of what I’ve been reading here. It’s not that making the RAA better is bad… just doing something because everyone else is doing it is bad without considering why it’s being done. The RAA has a lot of potential, especially in light of Ruby’s object-oriented nature, and merely mimicking others may lead to something decent, but stepping back and considering how far and in what direction the RAA could be taken would really further your cause (which in this case, I believe, is attracting programmers). > **···** > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:44:18 +0900 Tom Sawyer [transami@transami.net](mailto:transami@transami.net) wrote: > > – > Ryan Pavlik [rpav@users.sf.net](mailto:rpav@users.sf.net) > > “What part of this whole villain thing do you not > understand?” ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Carrera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c67d28/32.png) [@Daniel\_Carrera](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Carrera)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2003 17:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/raa-proposal/4311/20 "2003-01-26T17:49:56Z")
You misread my statement. It said “others do this, so it clearly it is possible”. I was not suggesting that we mimic anyone. I was demonstrating the feasibility of categorization on the basis that it has already been done. > **···** > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:31:22PM +0900, Ryan Pavlik wrote: > > > I mean this indeed. The only reason I used Daniel’s message as a > > starting point was the “everyone else does this so why don’t we” > > statement, > > – > Daniel Carrera > Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept. > University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137