On 27 May 2005, at 22:15, Lothar Scholz wrote:

> Hello ,
>
> Looked further into it and the situation is more worse then i
> expected. As RI does absolutely not handle the ruby key feature of
> open classes.

I'm not sure this is a good thing.  Library A extends String with a  
handy method, but the user isn't using library A, and the user is  
trying to use that handy method...

As it is, ri cannot tell you where a method came from, so throwing in  
methods from extensions will lead to much frustration as you try to  
track down which files you need to require to get which methods.

ri was designed to be clear and simple.  I worry that extra  
information may end up being too much or completely missed.

> Thinks like this are going to make me tired.
> Easy of implementation seems to have always a higher priority then  
> correctness
> or fullfilling requirements.

ri's original requirements seem to have been something like "Create a  
command-line tool to give handy access to documentation for core  
Ruby".  It performs exceedingly well at this.

I also don't believe you have a reason to complain about  
'correctness' or 'fullfilling requirements' when you did not pay for  
the product.  People typically release for free what *they* need, and  
understand it may need to be adapted by others to fit other needs.   
At no time did they promise to support the product or rewrite it for  
anybody else indefinitely.  (But *sometimes* they do that because  
they like/want to, especially when you can clearly and politely state  
the thing you want.)

> This is just one example, there are hundert
> others out there in all the unfinished libraries and tools. This gives
> a bad reputation to the whole language and community.

Like what?  There's plenty of people who may be able to pitch in and  
help out.  I won't be so rude as to ask "so where's your patches"  
because I realize that not everybody has copious amounts of free time  
to submit patches to the proper places (or even know how to fix their  
problems).  From what I've seen on the mailing list, Ruby does not  
have a bad reputation and those that think so generally go find some  
"better" language anyway.

The Rubygarden wiki would be a good place to have a 'libraries  
needing loving' page...

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain / segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E  7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04