----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel P. Zepeda" <daniel / zepeda-zone.net>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement....


> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:45:56 +0900
> "Berger, Daniel" <djberge / qwest.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hal E. Fulton [mailto:hal9000 / hypermetrics.com]
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Robert Feldt" <feldt / ce.chalmers.se>
> > > To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:28 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ANN] Happy Birthday, Ruby, and an announcement....
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ps. David: Great news about the non-profit org. I guess
> > > things haven't
> > > > really taken form yet but do you also plan to sponsor Ruby
> > > projects? I
> > > > should be looking for a job soon so if you have a bag of
> > > money... :-)
> > >
> <snip>
> >
> > In some ways this would be analogous to the Perl Foundation.  However, I
> > think that giving all the money to one or two folks, as the Perl
Foundation
> > did, would be a mistake for the Ruby community.
>
> --->Ruby is behind Perl in the package/module race, <----
>
> You know, I think folks need to stop thinking that way. I'm sure you
remember
> the very long discussion that was generated when David Alan Black (I
think)
> asked what modules/packages were missing. I don't remember even one
> contribution, other than my own, of things that were really missing from
RAA or
> already present in the Ruby core. In fact, I think it was you Daniel that
> pointed out that the things I thought were missing were actually already
> available as well. IIRC, the original question was "What
libraries/modules
> are missing?" and the answer seemed to be "Nothing, we just need to
package up,
> document what is already there in a better, easier to understand/use
format."
> IMHO, Ruby is *not* behind in the race, just because there isn't umpteen
> thousand different modules/libraries in RAA as compared to CPAN, it's just
that
> Perl *needed* that many extra modules to equal what Ruby already has. Now
I'm
> not suggesting that there isn't a need to keep developing new modules, but
> again, I just don't think Ruby is *behind* so we should stop *saying*
that, and
> possibly putting people off Ruby for a reason that isn't there.
>
>
> > and I think would benefit from a large number of
> > smaller projects than hardcore development of one or two large projects
> > (with the possible exception of Cardinal).  At this point in time, at
least.
> >
> > We could always combine the bulletin board approach with this as well, I
> > think.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >


Personally, something I'd love to see *not* happen anymore is for Perl to
come up every time we talk about Ruby's needs.  Ruby isn't Perl.  It may
have started out as a kind of Perl replacement, but it's grown to be much
more.  I don't mean it's much more than Perl, of course.  It's just
different.  Though it *can* play in the same space, I don't believe its
primary strengths are there.

I think the question for the comunity here is, "Do we want to play catchup
with Perl, or do we want to find the space where Ruby can *really*
differentiate itself and focus on that?"  I'm voting for the latter.  It's
easy to copy--it's more challenging to innovate.

Chad