Hi --

We've all heard this: "Ruby is great, but it doesn't have the
equivalent of CPAN."

I'm not saying it's not true... but I'm getting worried that we're
settling into a culture where Ruby is "that great language that
doesn't have the equivalent of CPAN," and that as that reputation
spreads, it's going to be harder to shake it off later -- even when
lots more modules have been written.

So: is there a process by which we can identify *exactly* what all the
missing modules are?  And then write them? :-)

The role of CPAN in all this needs to be kept in perspective.  There's
no obligation on [the] Ruby[ community]'s part to duplicate CPAN
module by module.  In fact, it's quite interesting to look at other
archives, such as <http://www.haskell.org/libraries>.

Also, I would advocate not getting embroiled in issues of naming,
specifically hierarchical module naming (text/soundex,
algorithms/sort/qsort, etc.).  The main thing is for software to come
into existence, and for its availability to be publicized.  If we try
to work out in advance questions like who gets to write the
authoritative x/y/z module, etc., the chances are fairly good that
nothing will ever get done.

So, all you almost-satisfied Ruby programmers, what's missing? :-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav