Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
> On 29.12.2009 17:51, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> 
>> It wouldn't be hard to do this in Ubuntu either, I think, and Ubuntu
>> configuration is generally very easy.
> 
> Solvable in a script, that deletes the current symlink, and creates a
> new one. Call it switch, give it the commandline argument "ruby", and
> you have a nice little "switch ruby" command. ;)

Right.

> 
>> No, I don't think it's appropriate to include an IDE in something like
>> this.  Perhaps there should be links to info about some, but I see no
>> reason that they should be preinstalled.
> 
> Couple of reason pro-IDE:
> - Most developers are already used to IDEs, be it Visual Studio,
> NetBeans, or IntelliJ IDEA.

That's actually a reason not to include an IDE.  Developers used to Java 
or C* tend to think that all development requires an IDE.  It's probably 
a good idea to expose them to the fact that an IDE is less necessary for 
Ruby.

In other words, we don't want people rushing to Eclipse simply because 
they've always used it.  Let 'em install it if they want to, but 
hopefully they'll fire up Emacs or Kate first.

> - IDEs (especially NetBeans, IME), provide excellent support for syntax
> highlighting, debugging, and plugin management (NetBeans has a nice
> integration for RubyGems, for example).
> 
> Cons:
> - Redistribution isn't always possible

All free IDEs are redistributable, aren't they?

> - Redistribution can create a significant overhead
> - It's one more thing to keep track of.
> 

If we do include IDEs, then I would also push for the inclusion of 
full-featured editors like jEdit and KomodoEdit.  I actually think these 
are far more useful for most Ruby work than are IDEs.

> A simple text editor that allows to run Ruby scripts in its buffer(s) at
> the push of a button is already a great step forward, IMO.

Perhaps.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen / marnen.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.