On 29.12.2009 18:07, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:

>> 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.

That's myopic. If you want to win over people to use Ruby, you need to 
make the transition as easy as possible.

Jeff Attwood wrote an actually worthwhile article on that:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000290.html

There's also the concept of "conversion" in marketing: The easier you 
make it for people to go and get/do something, the more people get / do 
that something.

> All free IDEs are redistributable, aren't they?

No. Not all Open Source licenses are compatible to each other, nor does 
"free" automatically mean "open source", either.

If there were a redistributable Visual Studio Ruby IDE, I'd include that 
in a heartbeat, damn the torpedoes, just to grab the legions of Windows 
developers.

> 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.

If a case can be made, then sure. But we don't have endless room, 
either, alas, so there will be cuts. Which is why IDEs are lower on the 
priority list than a good editor that runs Ruby code on the push of a 
button.

--
Phillip Gawlowski