Justin Collins wrote:
> Tom Cloyd wrote:
>> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>>> I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using. 
>>> In general it seems like most native extensions fall into two 
>>> categories:
>>>
>>> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick, 
>>> nokogiri
>>> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a 
>>> particular algorithm in a native language or call a library for the 
>>> same reasons
>>>
>>> And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both 
>>> categories.
>>>
>>> Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more 
>>> of them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm 
>>> concerned about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9 
>>> and JRuby do almost as much to speed Ruby up.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions 
>>> for things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the 
>>> future for both the standard and alternative implementations.
>>>
>>> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them 
>>> or why do they exist?
>>>
>>> - Charlie
>>>
>>>
>> Charlie,
>>
>> As someone with a social survey research background, I want to advise 
>> you that this is an extremely poor way to get your question answered. 
>> If you're not serious about getting a good answer, your request is 
>> very close to list-noise. If you are, then you need a decent sample 
>> OR all the parametric data (i.e., don't sample it - get it all).
>>
>> I wonder why you don't go after the latter? Is there someway to get 
>> download counts for various gems? I realize there are hundreds, but 
>> THAT would be useful data.
>>
>> Alternatively, you could use the gems themselves as your population. 
>> Draw a sample of them, as samples of serious Ruby code (and get at 
>> least 35, and preferably much more than that), then scrape from them 
>> the gems THEY use, and get a frequency distribution from that sample.
>>
>> In terms of bang for buck, I'd go with the latter alternative, 'cause 
>> THAT data would actually be something from which you might reasonably 
>> infer something.
>>
>> What you're doing with this list-post nonsense is akin to putting a 
>> box of surveys on the sidewalk, with a sign "please fill one out", 
>> then taking your results and thinking they actually MEAN something. 
>> Believe me, they do not.
>>
>> Hope this helps the "cause".
>>
>> t.
>>
>
>
> There is always this:
>
> http://gems.rubyforge.org/stats.html
>
> -Justin
>
>
Now, THAT's outright cheating. Worse yet, you probably Googled to find 
this (or could have, if you didn't know about it). What is this world 
coming too?

t.

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc / tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website) 
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~