5 ms·

The sensible behavior is to install the documentation., so no .gemrc is necessary (to get sensible behavior).

by xiaomai 16y ago

steveklabnik 16y ago
That's the entire point of this discussion. A large body of Rubyists think that the sensible behavior is to _not_ install the documentation. I google far more often than I ri.
- mcantor 16y ago
  Maybe the real problem is that Ruby documentation generally sucks! :-)
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    At least there are tests to make up for it. ;)
generalk 16y ago
That's the sensible behavior if you plan on reading local documentation. I can't say I've ever used ri, although I do browse local rdoc, sometimes. I know plenty of developers that hadn't heard of "gem server" until I mentioned it. And this is completely discounting production environments, where the documentation is almost certainly a waste of deploy time.
- geeksam 16y ago
  I hadn't heard of "gem server" until you mentioned it.
- rue 16y ago
  Approximately 60% of all questions on #ruby-lang could have been answered by ri, just for the core and stdlib. It's a shame it doesn't get used more. It's an orthogonal problem, though. The main issue with doc generation is that it is really, really slow (compared to the rest of the install process). If it can be sped up – patches are surely welcome – it'll just leave the envs that flat-out don't need the docs, ever, and those can use the new --no-doc.
bronson 16y ago
The vast majority of gemrcs on github disagree with you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1012&bih=945&q=gemrc+site:github.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=101... Personally, I can switch to a browser window, google for a gem, find its docs, and read them online in less time than it takes for ri to return its usually incomplete result or ask for brain-dead disambiguation. Ruby would have a better reputation if ri simply didn't exist.

The sensible behavior is to install the documentation., so no .gemrc is necessary (to get sensible behavior).

by xiaomai 16y ago

The sensible behavior is to install the documentation., so no .gemrc is necessary (to get sensible behavior).

That's the entire point of this discussion. A large body of Rubyists think that the sensible behavior is to _not_ install the documentation. I google far more often than I ri.

mcantor 16y ago
Maybe the real problem is that Ruby documentation generally sucks! :-)
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  At least there are tests to make up for it. ;)

generalk 16y ago

That's the sensible behavior if you plan on reading local documentation. I can't say I've ever used ri, although I do browse local rdoc, sometimes. I know plenty of developers that hadn't heard of "gem server" until I mentioned it. And this is completely discounting production environments, where the documentation is almost certainly a waste of deploy time.

geeksam 16y ago
I hadn't heard of "gem server" until you mentioned it.
rue 16y ago
Approximately 60% of all questions on #ruby-lang could have been answered by ri, just for the core and stdlib. It's a shame it doesn't get used more. It's an orthogonal problem, though. The main issue with doc generation is that it is really, really slow (compared to the rest of the install process). If it can be sped up – patches are surely welcome – it'll just leave the envs that flat-out don't need the docs, ever, and those can use the new --no-doc.

bronson 16y ago

The vast majority of gemrcs on github disagree with you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1012&bih=945&q=gemrc+site:github.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=101... Personally, I can switch to a browser window, google for a gem, find its docs, and read them online in less time than it takes for ri to return its usually incomplete result or ask for brain-dead disambiguation. Ruby would have a better reputation if ri simply didn't exist.