Neil Stevens schrieb:
> Trans wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 1:39 pm, "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Ber... / qwest.com> wrote:
>>> Then there's the other option of removing everything from the standard
>>> library completely except rubygems, and letting folks install only what
>>> they want. But, maybe that's another topic. :)
>>
>> Probably not quite everything should go. But, given that RubyGems is
>> now standard, and used by everyone, I'd say that sounds like a damn
>> good idea.
>>
>> The problem with including all these extra libraries is that it
>> discourages developers from trying, using and building alternatives.
>> In a way, Ruby reminds me of Windows in this respect, we all know the
>> effect of it's bundling of IE. I'd much rather see Ruby take the light-
>> weight open road. While it may not be quite as convenient to install,
>> in the end I think we'd see much higher quality libraries.
> 
> And the counterpoint to that, is if Ruby's standard library is light on 
> features, it will discourage people from even trying it.  If Python and 
> PHP can do X, Y, Z out of the box, but you have to install other 
> libraries to get Ruby to do those things, it will be counted as a strike 
> against Ruby.
> 
In addition it will difficult to use Ruby in some companies for ad hoc 
tools, because it is usually not allowed to install additional things.