On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM, ghorner <gabriel.horner / gmail.com> wrote:
> ripl, a light modular alternative to irb, has reached 0.3.0. ripl
> works on most major rubies (1.8.x, 1.9.x, rubinius and jruby), has a
> growing plugin ecosystem of 15+ plugins and is fully documented and
> tested. For more on ripl's features and advantages over irb see:
>
> * http://github.com/cldwalker/ripl
> * http://rbjl.net/44-ripl-why-should-you-use-an-irb-alternative

This looks interesting, although I would only use it if I need a shell
framework.  You do not mention a few downsides of ripl:

- it is not automatically there as IRB is because it's part of a
standard Ruby installation (or present in the package system)
- users need to learn it

Also, I don't find the argument of 5,000 vs. 270 loc very appealing:
every software acquires some "weight" as it grows older.  Even if
ripl's core does not gain that much - the gain then simply will be in
the plugins.  Over time the loc gap will likely shrink so this is at
best a temporary argument. :-)

Side note: funnily enough I have become more conservative in the
course of time; maybe it's because I see the cost of change clearer
nowadays.  At least I rather invest energy in new things that are
needed than in creating replacements for things that work.  Probably
I'm approaching grumpy old man state... :-)

Kind regards

robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/