------art_2840_5008674.1196260518252
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

>
>
> There are simply too many limits. The dependency issue is not really
> problematic. On windows you can install those fat .exe' files and
> thats about it. I must know because I do it all the time on
> windows (I still look for ruby-automation to install these things
> but for now i do this manually, on windows ... windows is so
> annoying, on linux i just run a few ruby scripts and be done with
> it...)


Yes, if you work on single workstations. Try using group policy rolling out
the Ruby and dozens of 3rd party bindings and .exes... Where I have been
having fun has had at least jre's already installed. No dependencies, just
webstart or copy couple simple files using group policy. Voila.
Mass-deploying Ruby is not a problem, but the rest is inconvenient,
especially to be done to reach sane basic expected functionality instead of
some rare specialities.


> Claiming to remove cairo as part of a "solution" to a problem which does
> not really exist the way you wrote is like ... I don't know... rubbing
>

I don't even honestly care what Cairo is. It's moot technical details. I
care just about the productive programming part. If cairo can produce native
widgets on all the most important platforms then why not just move Cairo
into Ruby's core dependencies.


> "The standard library is the problem."
> I do not agree about "the" problem, but I would agree that there could
> be a some little improves on it, especially from docu side.


It's piss poor, especially the documentation. After a few days working with
Visual Studio's help browser and the .NET MSDN libraries (or Sun's javadocs,
or what Delphi comes with) seeing the Ruby's 80s rdoc that is built for
target group that already has used those libraries but just needs reference
for checking parameters makes my eyes bleed.


>
> "stupid" people (like me) to build and do better (more sophisticated)
> stuff. AND IN YOUR FLAMES YOU DO NOT SUGGEST ANY ALTERNATIVE!


Yes I have. Several times, and extemely clearly. You just went into hair
splitting about irrelevant issues and not even attempted to understand the
other viewpoints.


>
> And on Windows, where is the problem anyway... click-click-click
> INSTALLED. Did you look at how large java+netbeans is?
> This is insane man ...


Most of it is documentation. The actually pretty darned good goldmine of
information that is nearly entirely nonexistent for Ruby.


>
> I use it on windows too. I never had the need to use Tk and I am
> also not a mac user. For my linux and windows needs it is
> perfect, and EXACTLY the wiki was my reason to pick it.


Then you obviously do not understand very much of usability and the
requirement of consistency. It's okay, 99% of the software is like that -
plain trash - anyways. I just myself wouldn't want to commit those
astrocities.


> "Too much complexity and risks."
> I laugh about customers and their fears! Go Java, customers,
> embrace your favourite world!
> I use Ruby because I love it as a language. For me, all my


If you loved it as a language you would want more people into improving it
and coming forth with their ideas for refinement instead of scaring them
away. Especially as the aims are really not contradictory.

------art_2840_5008674.1196260518252--