Pascal GUICHARD
4/16/2005 11:00:00 PM
James,
I agree with you for almost your comments.
First, I wouldn't discuss here if I were not intested in ruby and somewhat
searching the right libs, andd maybe to go for some solutoins.
I find too that lot of libraries are of caliber as you say.
What is interesting me in twisted-python is that it is a networking
framework for almost any protocol, and also asynchronous communications =>
EAI, ESB sujects
But I know also that it a big amount of code / work done, so if not finding
a ruby equivalent, it could be interesting to profit of this work (and I
mean all work around other perl/python libraries) by using a bridge : for
me, it doesn't sound silly, but only a practical view of facts, it was and
it it is no offense also.
The fact is I didn't know of perl::POE, but at first sight seems in the same
vein as twited-python, and yes it would be interesting to have such a ruby
framework (I didn't find one)
And last, about ruby language itself, I didn't said that there are
good:great ruby projects, at the contrary.
But if you want to put it in the enterprise, it must have as real future,
and think what if the worse was to happen : matz, for one reason or another,
stops to work/evolve ruby ?
P. Guichard
-----Message d'origine-----
De : James Edward Gray II [mailto:james@grayproductions.net]
Envoye : dimanche 17 avril 2005 00:28
A : ruby-talk ML
Objet : Ruby Libraries (was Re: Re:)
On Apr 16, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Pascal GUICHARD wrote:
> The fact is that I am a little bit disappointed by the libraries, and
> the
> evolution :
I find Ruby libraries to be of a generally high caliber. I agree that
we're still short in a few areas, but that seems to be shrinking all
the time.
I think the real issue here is finding the good libraries. The RAA
isn't perfect for this yet and changes have been discussed here in the
past.
Still I'm confused by what you hope to gain from a blanket statement
like this? Do you want us to show you what libraries we consider
essential? In what areas?
Remember that this is a largely open source community. Jump right in
and help us fill in the holes!
> But on the hand, another lot of projects/libraries are present but
> somewhat
> outdated at best, going even to deprecated/inoperatives such as the
> ruby-python bridge, that IMO
> Should be one of the most well maintained because of all
> work/llibraries
> that it would make accessible, such the library I mentionned :
> twisted-python, and also a lot of python work.
No offense intended, but this seems silly to me. If you want to
program in Python, go for Python. Firing up Ruby to bridge to a very
similar language seems odd to me and I have no use for a library that
helps me do that.
Perhaps what is really needed here is a Ruby port of Twisted. That
makes a lot more sense to me. If that's really the goal here, let's
create a solid Ruby solution, not hack together a strange Python
bridge.
I'm not familiar with Twisted, but I just looked over the site a
little. Is it a mainly a networking library? It seemed to include an
event loop as well. Is it anything like Perl's POE? If I'm
understanding any of this correctly, I can say that I personally would
love to see a good Ruby framework like this. Start the project on
Rubyforge and I might even sign on to help.
> So compare the latter scheme for Java, with the present one for ruby
> that is
> maintained and evolving by only one man, even though as much brilliant
> as
> you want.
I really don't feel Ruby is evolving from one man. Matz may control
the language, but that doesn't tell a fraction of the whole story.
Look at some of the great libraries in Ruby's standard library that
weren't created by Matz. What about projects like RubyGems, Rake,
Builder, Redcloth, Needle, Rails... I could go on and on! What about
Dave Thomas's work to bring Ruby to the masses? One man may have given
us the canvas, and we're more than grateful for that, but I doubt he's
even the lead painter.
James Edward Gray II