Richard Harlos <quadzero / users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 09:46:02 -0500, Jim Menard wrote:
> > Richard Harlos wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> A Sourceforge Foundry wouldn't necessarily have to be mutually
> >> exclusive with the other resources you cited, but it might be
> >> invaluable for the Ruby community to co-habitate with other Open Source
> >> efforts.
> > 
> > It may not be mutually exclusive, but it would be redundant. The only
> > advantage a SourceForge foundry would have is publicity among a certain
> > circle of developers. That's not a bad thing, but I don't think it
> > outweighs the disadvantage of being reduntant.
> 
> Well then, it seems (so far, anyway) that my view about this is in the
> minority.  That's fine.  Like I said, I was just thinking aloud.

I do it all the time. Drives everyone around me crazy, too.

> I am curious about something, Jim.  You mentioned the publicity as an
> advantage, which is a view I certainly agree with.  You also mentioned
> "the disadvantage of being redundant" but never really stated what that
> disadvantage is, or how it "outweighs" the publicity advantage, i.e.,
> what criteria gives the disadvantage more weight.
> 
> Would you care to elaborate for the sake of my curiosity?   :-)

With redundancy, there is more work and there are more errors. As the
Pragmattic Programmers remind us, "DRY": Don't Repeat Yourself.

There is more work because a Ruby developer has to go to more than one
place to ask or answer questions (comp.lang.ruby and the SourceForget
foundry), and project updates and other "pushes" of information have to be
pushed to multiple places.

There are more errors because the same information is duplicated.

Jim
-- 
Jim Menard, jimm / io.com, http://www.io.com/~jimm/
"Master, does Emacs have the Buddha nature?" the novice asked.
"I don't see why not. It's got bloody well everything else."
    -- John Fouhy