On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:41:07 am Steve Klabnik wrote:
> > Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you'll pardon the pun.
> 
> First of all, a disclaimer: I never met or talked to _why. So I can't
> really fully represent what his wishes were. That being said, you have to
> remember where Shoes came from: Hackety Hack. Hackety needs to have
> everything that it needs to function wrapped up inside of it: _why didn't
> want anyone to have to download anything else to get it working.

That sounds like a problem for something like rawr. As far as I can tell, it's 
possible to have a rawr app which doesn't use monkeybars, and vice versa.

> > I just don't see any major
> > blockers here -- I really don't see a good reason why Shoes should carry
> > its
> > own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits,
> > application
> > frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.
> 
> _why always referred to Shoes as an 'app toolkit.' He saw it as a different
> thing. And Hackety needs it to be that way.

None of which seems to contradict what you said here:

> That said, we _are_ working on a pure Ruby Shoes,

Hackity doesn't need Shoes as a whole to be that way, it just needs _some_ 
sort of "app toolkit" -- again, something like rawr, though maybe rawr itself 
isn't appropriate. I can see why such an "app toolkit" might be tightly bound 
to a GUI toolkit, but I see no reason it should be the other way around.

I don't think we actually disagree here.