> They don't need Ruby, because it's embedded in the executable,
> along with the application files and libraries and gems.
> Everything they need to run the application. To `b run` the
> application. Not to install the application. This document
> describes a way to create an `tt,b application.exe`. Not a `tt
> setup.exe` or an `tt install.exe`.

I agree this is pretty nice to have, especially distributing
applications for Windows customers for example.

But... what happens when you have several applications in the same system ?
You will have several copies of Ruby and associated libraries.

Whilst this is handy for giving away an app contained in a single
.exe,  (I've tested it and it works really great!) this is very
different from distributing a JAR

The analogy here with the Java world would be having a JRE for each
JAR you install in your system.
That's clearly not a model I want to use in a desktop with several
different apps installed.
For instance, I have no way to update the Ruby runtime environment for
all apps at once, I have to 'compile' and redistribute an exe for each
application, which is not nice for installing a Ruby bugfix.

I don't think these approaches are mutually exclusive, I would
definetly like to be able to run an  .RBA  from Ruby too, without
having to copy the Ruby environment (the JRE analogous) for every
installed RBA.

I think there is a place for both approaches.
Does the current framework contemplate this other possibility ?

cheers,
                                         vruz