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) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~