[rspec-devel] require 'rubygems'

Mark Wilden mark at mwilden.com
Thu Mar 26 00:09:33 EDT 2009


I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

What are the actual, real-world disadvantages of "require 'rubygems'"?
Here's what Ryan says:

  Why You Shouldn't Force Rubygems On People
  ------------------------------------------
  When I use your library, deploy your app, or run your tests I may not want
  to use rubygems. When you "require 'rubygems'" in your code, you remove my
  ability to make that decision. I cannot unrequire rubygems, but you can
  not require it in the first place.

This sounds like more of a libertarian/philosophical rationale than
something that I should spend any time worrying about.

So require rubygems or don't require it - it doesn't matter to me (or
anyone I know) because I have rubygems installed. So do 99% of Rails
users, I'm willing to bet.

As for frequent releases, I don't think there's anything wrong with
that. That's the agile way - you release something, see what the
reaction is, change it, lather, maybe get soap in your eyes, rinse,
and repeat. No one's going to remember version 1.2.326 in six months,
anyway.

///ark

(Anyone figure out why there are so many Ryans on Rails?)


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list