David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Ben Giddings wrote:
>>
>> The same basic concept applies to ruby-doc.org.  Is this just some 
>> fan's attempt to document Ruby, which may be incomplete or out of 
>> date, or is this the actively maintained Ruby documentation?
>>
>> See my concerns?
> 
> 
> Yes, but I see them differently :-)
> 
> When it comes to the miscellaneous fan/hacker/enthusiast sites, the
> Ruby community at large has no control over their existence.  (This is
> the Web, after all.)  So rather than worry about the problems they
> create, I'd like to see energy go into thinking of ways for the
> community to encourage and support the efforts of people who want to
> create their own Ruby sites.  I can't help thinking that a
> proliferation of Ruby sites -- especially if the community embraces
> them and helps them out when necessary -- is part of the solution to
> raising people's knowledge about Ruby, not the problem.
> 
> (I know this sounds a bit Utopian, but as a first approximation I'd
> rather try to flow with the nature of the Web than swim against it.)

I don't see this as Utopian at all.  Most of the discussion on site 
authenticity reminds me of the arguments for static typing.  There seem 
to be big concerns over an imagined problem that likely does not occur 
all that often in real life.

For example, the very first paragraph on ruby-doc says, "The 
ruby-doc.org Ruby documentation project is an effort by the Ruby 
community to provide complete and accurate documentation for the Ruby 
programming language."

But, of course, how can you really *know* this is true?  Maybe it's a 
lie.  Ah! What's needed is some sort of "static typing" of the site, a 
demonstrable, fool-proof way to assert that the site is really part of 
the ruby-lang Web hierarchy.

As with static typing in general, I don't buy it.  I'm more for duck 
typing sites (though I admit that one can often find a bit of monkey 
typing out there too. )

Various Ruby sites have been in a process of redesign for a while; 
sometimes the changes are small and slow, other times a whole new site 
seems to appear.  I've been working on major changes to ruby-doc for, 
well, too long now.  Recent discussions have been prompting me to at 
least roll  out some minor changes I'd been holding off, and finish up 
getting the larger changes in place.

(And I want to thank those who have taken the time to contact me and 
offer cogent criticism and thoughtful, concrete suggestions on improving 
the site.  The current problems with ruby-doc are fairly obvious, so 
enumerating them is not the tough task; coming up with specific 
alternatives, with supporting arguments based on tangible user goals, is 
more of a challenge.)

I also want to extended my thanks to all those who have put up and/or 
maintain Ruby Web sites, official or not.  Your time and effort is well 
appreciated.

James Britt