3 ms·

I can't understand if you are arguing against people duplicating the fact that rubygems is already loaded / is part of the core lib, or that people should respe

• masklinn 17y ago
  > You're nuts, did you know? Thanks for teaching me that I shouldn't use an alternate explorer to the finder. > Just because .. it's loading required libraries? No it's not. It's managing your $LOAD_PATH. You don't need gems to load libraries, unless those were installed by gems in the first place if we stretch the meaning of "load libraries" a lot. > The weird personal tastes of two people basically don't matter compared to the great benefits enjoyed by the rest of the community. What's the relation there? What's the "great benefits" to you adding "require 'rubygems'" like so many droppings to all your libraries? It's not like anyone is arguing against using Rubygems. If you like gems, go ahead and use it. All that's asked is that you don't force others to do so. > I guess you're just never going to update to 1.9 then? I fail to see the relevance. Ruby 1.9 isn't going to shoot me if I don't use gems to manage $LOAD_PATH. And as far as Ruby 1.9 is concerned, since it requires rubygems on its own there's no reason whatsoever for library writers to do it themselves.
  • sho 17y ago
    What's the "great benefits" to you adding "require 'rubygems'" like so many droppings to all your libraries? Not that it makes any sense arguing further, but for the record, I was not talking about libraries, I was talking about apps. Top level apps that need to require those libraries somehow. I would have thought it was completely reasonable for top-level app authors to require rubygems to pull in the libraries they need but judging by votes, apparently not. C'est la vie.
    • masklinn 17y ago
      > Not that it makes any sense arguing further, but for the record, I was not talking about libraries, I was talking about apps. An app is a library is an app. > Top level apps that need to require those libraries somehow. And Ruby has a built-in method for that. It's called `require`. So if an app, a library, a script or whatever needs another library, it requires it and is done. > I would have thought it was completely reasonable for top-level app authors to require rubygems No. Unless the toplevel app is never distributed out of controlled environments (where you do impose rubygems) or expands gems in some way and therefore needs to hook into it (e.g. a GUI gems manager à la synaptic for apt-get) there is no need for rubygems at the app level. The usage of rubygems (or the lack thereof) is part of the execution environment (the state of the machine the app is run on), not part of the application. Maybe for security reasons all libraries are deployed manually and $LOAD_PATH is handled likewise, maybe the guy uses bundler (http://github.com/wycats/bundler/tree/master http://github.com/wycats/bundler/tree/master) or rip (http://hellorip.com/ http://hellorip.com/) and doesn't want or need rubygems, maybe the user goes through his OS's package manager of choice (be it yum, apt-get, ports, …) because he likes having all package handling across his machine in a single place and piece, or maybe the app's user does indeed use rubygems. But as the application/script/library author, that's none of your business. Requiring rubygems in your distributed code (unless you're in specific wrapper contexts or, once again, you're building on top of rubygems and expanding it in some way) means you're putting your nose where it doesn't belong: you're forcing environmental decisions on your users. If you want to package your lib/app as a gems, that's fine and way cool of you, but that doesn't imply requiring rubygems at runtime.
      • sho 17y ago
        "An app is a library is an app." I've belated realised that you're either a really good troll or you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about. Well done, you got me.