[rspec-devel] require 'rubygems'
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 00:33:25 EDT 2009
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com> wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, I actually think he's got a legitimate point. It's one thing to
make things easier for the majority, but it's another to tie the hands
of the minority in the process. We should find a way to do it that
keeps options open for alternatives.
> 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,
You haven't been using rspec that long, have you :) History proves
that I have NO problem with frequent releases.
What I do have a problem with is saying "A, no, now B, now back to A,
oops - let's try "C" - all around one issue that has an impact on
> (Anyone figure out why there are so many Ryans on Rails?)
How about all the ///arks?
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-devel