3 ms·

I think you're taking a very Railscentrc view of Ruby. rubygems the tool existed before Rails, as did multiple gem hosting mirrors. I believe rubygems.org spr

I think you're taking a very Railscentrc view of Ruby. rubygems the tool existed before Rails, as did multiple gem hosting mirrors. I believe rubygems.org sprang up because rubyforge.org was falling out of favor. And Bundler is not part of Ruby. It's possible Wayne Seguin created rvm due Rails but I never got that impression from his talks (but it's been some time). Pretty sure MenTaLguY created "tap"; Rails had "returning" (though they are similar and perhaps the usage in Rails made it popular enough to warrant inclusion in core). http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropping-on-expressions http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropp... Certainly if any library gets a lot of use then that will influence aspects of the base language, but matz and ko1 seem pretty deliberate about what gets added.

sanderjd 13y ago
Heh, I just thought it was an interesting question to speculate about - I really have no idea to what extent Rails has driven Ruby recently. You're probably right about `.tap`, and I can't think of any other standard library stuff, so my speculation there is seeming pretty weak. I didn't suggest that Rails invented rubygems and gem hosts, I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point...
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point... Rubygems.org was not driven by Rails. It doesn't offer much beyond what rubyforge was doing. Less, actually. RF was for code hosting, docs, and gem serving. Once people started moving to github RF lost favor. When Github decided to stop serving gems rubygems.org came about to fill the gap. It lists and serves gesm; code and docs live elsewhere. Bundler, sure, came form the Rails community to apparently solve a problem for that community. It's not for everyone, though. I don't use it (doesn't make life any better for me), but then I don't use Rails either. There's lots that goes in Ruby that has nothing to do with Rails and the conflation of Rails and Ruby is a detriment to different Ruby communities out there.
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    I still don't think that you actually disagree that the github/rubygems.org setup is an improvement over the rubyforge setup. Assuming that, I agree that the extent to which Rails had anything to do with that is debatable (and unanswerable, in fact); there was definitely an explosion of gems hosted on github that needed a new home, and I think the popularity of Rails had something to do with that explosion, but it certainly may have happened anyway. I think lots of people find Bundler to be an improvement over straight rubygems outside of Rails projects (even if you don't), which I think fits the criteria of "an improvement driven by Rails". I think your last sentence is the real argument you're trying to make here, and I agree with it wholeheartedly - it's incredibly frustrating that so many people seem to think Ruby is only good or useful because of Rails. I'm not one of those people!

sanderjd 13y ago

Heh, I just thought it was an interesting question to speculate about - I really have no idea to what extent Rails has driven Ruby recently. You're probably right about `.tap`, and I can't think of any other standard library stuff, so my speculation there is seeming pretty weak. I didn't suggest that Rails invented rubygems and gem hosts, I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point...

jamesbritt 13y ago
I suggested that rubygems.org and bundler were major improvements to the ruby packaging ecosystem that were driven by Rails. I'm not sure you actually disagreed with that point... Rubygems.org was not driven by Rails. It doesn't offer much beyond what rubyforge was doing. Less, actually. RF was for code hosting, docs, and gem serving. Once people started moving to github RF lost favor. When Github decided to stop serving gems rubygems.org came about to fill the gap. It lists and serves gesm; code and docs live elsewhere. Bundler, sure, came form the Rails community to apparently solve a problem for that community. It's not for everyone, though. I don't use it (doesn't make life any better for me), but then I don't use Rails either. There's lots that goes in Ruby that has nothing to do with Rails and the conflation of Rails and Ruby is a detriment to different Ruby communities out there.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  I still don't think that you actually disagree that the github/rubygems.org setup is an improvement over the rubyforge setup. Assuming that, I agree that the extent to which Rails had anything to do with that is debatable (and unanswerable, in fact); there was definitely an explosion of gems hosted on github that needed a new home, and I think the popularity of Rails had something to do with that explosion, but it certainly may have happened anyway. I think lots of people find Bundler to be an improvement over straight rubygems outside of Rails projects (even if you don't), which I think fits the criteria of "an improvement driven by Rails". I think your last sentence is the real argument you're trying to make here, and I agree with it wholeheartedly - it's incredibly frustrating that so many people seem to think Ruby is only good or useful because of Rails. I'm not one of those people!