--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 °∆require 'some-other-lib'°« 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°«s dependencies; if you want to
provide an executable wrapper that utilises your library, make the
wrapper°«s 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°«m guessing here) to promote
wider RubyGems adoption, but I still believe you shouldn°«t assume
RubyGems presence (especially if you want to be nice to stripped-down
embedded systems, for example).

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

°Ĺ Shot
-- 
I should like to find the person who decided that since
°∆bookmarks°« and °∆history°« 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--