For another point of view... We put Ruby on ARM-based, 2 Watt processor boards with 32MB of RAM and 8 MB of flash memory. This is a typical embedded Unix configuration. One of the main reasons I stay with Ruby 1.6.8 is that I'd have to hack apart the current standard library to make it fit in my target environment and still have enough room for my application. The 1.8 series interpreter is not much larger than 1.6.8. It is only the bundled libraries that bust my storage budget. I think Ruby might serve in both the embedded and server/desktop environments if a core-subset could be broken out of the current monolithic standard library. This core would obviously include rubygems and its dependencies. The standard Ruby install for typical users would silently install the full set of standard libraries as it does now. However, those wishing more control of over their configurations could install just the core. Would this packaging be acceptable for corporate IT users as well? I'd suggest that the core libraries consist of Rubygems, its dependencies and most of the very small set of libraries that shipped with Ruby 1.6.8. But, there may be better ways of deciding which libraries should be in the core. The important thing is to recognize the benefits to Ruby inherent in factoring out this core library subset so that this "lean Ruby" becomes a supported configuration and not something that everyone who needs it must invent (and continue to maintain) for themselves. - brent Wolfgang Nádasi-donner-2 wrote: > > 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. > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-ruby-core%3A18937--A-stupid-question...-tp19673111p19728569.html Sent from the ruby-core mailing list archive at Nabble.com.