Hi,

This may make more sense if you start reading from somewhere about 2/3rds
the way to the end.

"Dave Thomas" wrote:
> "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker / jump.net> writes:
>
> > I am all for trying to do all sorts of neat new things in Ruby. But
> > I think we should be very wary of letting highly hypothetical tail
> > wag a very real dog.
>
> Agreed. Now demonstrate why your dog is any more real than my tail.[1]

Because one is solidly based on fairly _widespread_, fairly _common_, and
_present_ needs, practices, experiences, and conditions that have and will
endure for some time, for the various sorts of reasons previously described
(and repeatedly deleted from replies). The other is off in the future (and
notably, you didn't answer my question concerning the crucial threshold of
smallness)

> I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just that your arguments
> comes from just as much of a guess as mine.

Not so.  They are based on experience, and on previously mentioned (and once
again deleted) factors.

You assume users want
> everything.

Again, not so. I think you've either lost track of or have misread what I've
previously said about this.

> I don't see anything wrong with pursuing both.

Well, I'm happy you finally agree. :-)

> As I suggested
> previously, you or someone else could construct and maintain the
> comprehensive distribution, while others could work on alternative
> technologies.

Gee, didn't I previously suggest that previously? I have strong premonitions
of recursive deja vu that just won't stop ! :-)

But this wan't the original issue on this branch of this thread. We were
discussing limitations to the size of the Ruby core, not distribution.

> Footnotes:
> [1]  This is a rhetorical question! I don't really want to prolong an

But of course you really must be expecting a reply (:-) when such a
rhetorical question radically mischaracterizes what I have previously
written.

I always "like" those "I'll stop here if you will let me have the final
word" replies. :-)

Conrad