Hello Ryan,

RL> I'd really like to hear alternatives. Keep in mind I'm not a developer on
RL> the current RubyGems, so it's not like I'm defending any work of my own.
RL> But I know the RubyGems developers have put a lot of hard work into it,
RL> and to complain as you have without any suggestions for alternatives isn't
RL> particularly constructive.

RubyGems is still a hack, or lets say it politely a prototype.
A lot of things are simply not working or implemented in a bad way. While
developing a frontend for ArachnoRuby i run into so much problems with
the core rubygems system that i think a lot of work needs to be put
into the 0.9.X series before it comes alive (bad C/S design, does not
support C-extensions, can't handle the platform indicator, can't see
install notes before trying to install a ruby gem - but additional parameters
must be passed to some libraries during the "gem install xxx" command,
no way to get list of remote specifications, braindead has_rdoc
feature from DHH, ....)

For the "require 'rubygems'" problem the best solution is easy to find
and obvious, integrate it into the ruby kernel. When done right
(fixing the previously mentioned bugs), this is an essential core
technology that should work out of the box. Until this happens
i don't have a problem with writing "require 'rubygems'" on the first
line. I wouldn't add a rescue clause as i think it's a valid option to
force a user to have rubygems installed as some of the requirements of
your library.

And -rubygems looks like an option, so explain somebody that (it's not
done in the help) that -rubygems and -rfoobar are the some and
influence each other (order of command line options). So it's not
newbie friendly and this should be the primarily goal of rubygems.



-- 
 Best regards,                        emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
 Lothar Scholz                        http://www.ruby-ide.com
 CTO Scriptolutions                   Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's