I'd like to see http://www.ruby-lang.org/en cleaned up to immediately
convey to new users whether they want to investigate more or not. I
had business cards once described as needing to impress in the 1/2
second someone looks at it before tossing it in the garbage. A
web-site, I think, needs to follow the same principles.

In that vain, I'd like to see:
1. focus on introduction, tutorials, and documentation- having news
dominate the body is not ideal- this is where you capture new people,
and the news is meaningless to most of them.
2. a marketing blurb right at the top that's more detailed. It should
give a sense of what Ruby is, and why I'd be in interested in going
further into it. Good marketing is concise communication, not mindless
hype, and, there is nothing wrong about being excited about a great
thing. "The power and beauty of Smalltalk mixed with the hard-nosed
practicality of Perl, Ruby is an ultra-productive Smalltalk and Perl
inspired dynamic programming language that closes the gap between
thought and code.  Almost as important, Ruby makes programming fun
again."
3. a "Get Started in 10 Minutes Tutorial Link". A canonical tutorial
aka Python would be nice. Ideally, there is a 10 minute one and a 4
hour one.
4. a prominent "Download Now" link at the top.

The python site was recently cleaned up, and while still butt-ugly, it
is nicely focused.

Nick


On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:11:48 +0900, Thursday
<nospam / nospam.nospam.nospam.nospam.org> wrote:
> I think Ruby's popularity is growing, but I can't help but wonder what
> we can do to accelerate its adoption.
> 
> I think we've all seen superior technologies go extinct due to bad
> marketing/perception--sadly, perception can be more important than
> reality at times.
> 
> I think at a minimum, we need these:
> 
> 1. a more formal release process--this could be as simple as documenting
> what level of testing goes into changes to the stable vs dev branches
> before they are committed to CVS.
> 
> 2. a bug tracking system where we can report and view bugs--bugzilla is
> overkill, maybe something simpler like trac should be considered.
> 
> 3. last but not least, online docs on Ruby's primary website (not
> 3rd-party websites) that is similar to those provided by PostgreSQL and
> Python. Maybe we can volunteer to create 'official' ruby docs to be
> hosted on ruby's primary website.  Preferably using a popular
> documentation format that does not use frames like these:
> 
> http://python.org/doc/2.4/
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/index.html
> 
> When ruby's primary website lists ruby 1.4.6 docs for download and says
> ruby 1.6 docs are not yet ready (as of Dec 28, 2004), it can give the
> wrong impression about Ruby's current pace of activity:
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/20020107.html
> 
> This is particularly sad and misleading because matz, nobu, shugo and
> many others are very actively working on improving ruby daily (we can
> see this in the daily cvs commits).  And it doesn't provide any clues to
> newcomers/evaluators about the vibrant ruby community that is
> frantically creating new ruby projects to rubyforge.
> 
> Anyone else think these few changes can make a big difference in how
> ruby is perceived, and consequently chosen over other languages?
> 
> 


-- 
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg