On 3/21/06, Seth Rasmussen <seths.mailing.lists / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, gwtmp01 / mac.com <gwtmp01 / mac.com> wrote:
> > I was just reading through http://scottraymond.net/articles/
> > 2006/02/28/rails-1.1, which gives an overview of the next Rails release.

> > Is anyone else concerned that the rapid evolution and adoption of
> > Rails is de facto
> > forking the core and standard libraries of Ruby?
>
> I am not concerned. This is why the language is open.
>
> I am perplexed by the notion some seem to have that the open nature of
> Ruby is really just something like a trophy wife that you don't
> actually love, but love the idea of.


I don't think it's the openness of the classes that anyone is worried
about, it's the potential for divergence when a significant percentage
of the language's users come from a superset of the main language.

This is a great opportunity (as has been mentioned) to really look at
the additions made by the Rails team.  Some of those additions are
likely candidates for inclusion into the core and/or stdlib.  Others
could be extracted into a library (a la nitro and facets) to allow
wider use without having to include Rails.

> --
> Seth Thomas Rasmussen
> http://sethrasmussen.com/
>
>


--
thanks,
-pate
-------------------------