--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Josh Cheek:

> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Shot
> (Piotr Szotkowski) <shot / hot.pl> wrote:

>> Josh Cheek:

>>> I wonder how many people _don't_ use rubygems. What creates more
>>> work, requiring rubygems so that people who don't want it don't have
>>> to use it, or not requiring rubygems so that people who do want it
>>> have to keep putting -rubygems when they load files?

>> Ruby 1.9 has RubyGems built-in, and for the legacy version you can
>> simply add -rubygems to your RUBY_OPTS and be done with the problem.

> I don't have 1.9, but this sounds like it requires rubygems
> automatically, which seems to contradict what several people
> earlier have said we should do.

I think what most of us (can really say for others, though) want to
say is this: if youe creating a library, don equire 'rubygems'if all you use them for is to make ¡Ærequire 'some-other-lib'¡Ç work
automagically. This is because there are cases where people want to
manage their libraries outside RubyGems, and by requiring them you add
a dependency that is simply not needed in their case.

If your lib is to be used by third party applications, their authors
will take care of satisfying your lib¡Çs dependencies; if you want to
provide an executable wrapper that utilises your library, make the
wrapper¡Çs code intelligent enough to look for the dependencies (e.g.
by doing the LoadError tango before it says that its dependencies cannot
be satisfied).

> For example, the original post quotes "The system I use to
> manage my $LOAD_PATH is not your library/app/tests concern."

Yes, and this is what I mean above.

> If I understand what you have said, it sounds like the
> language has done what they are saying that we should not do.

Ruby 1.9 did what is convenient, and (I¡Çm guessing here) to promote
wider RubyGems adoption, but I still believe you shouldn¡Çt assume
RubyGems presence (especially if you want to be nice to stripped-down
embedded systems, for example).

What I meant by the ¡Æ1.9 does this for you anyway, and in 1.8 you can
adjust RUBY_OPTS once and be done with it¡Ç comment was to provide the
solution to the problem of ¡Æit¡Çs inconvenient for me to useibraries
that do not ¡Èrequire 'rubygems'¡É, because I need to explicitely require
them myself¡Ç. That said, I do agree with James Britt that putting any -r
switches in RUBY_OPTS feels bad to me (but then I don¡Çt mind requiring
RubyGems myself where needed  *and* I try hard to use Ruby 1.9 anyway).

¡½ Shot
-- 
I should like to find the person who decided that since
¡Æbookmarks¡Ç and ¡Æhistory¡Ç were both lists of URLs they
ought to be integrated in a single database. I should like
to shake him warmly by the throat until his head comes off.
             [Roger Burton West on Firefox, hates-software]

--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAktlUJcACgkQi/mCfdEo8UrSQwCbBLdWZrkgDBFFDV6wv6hv/xWK
jhMAoJ0mkGEDQ3/LDIAPfn4da3MdJEtl
`Ta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6--