[rspec-devel] require 'rubygems'

Mark Wilden mark at mwilden.com
Thu Mar 26 02:26:11 EDT 2009


On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I don't disagree with that. If there's a solid idiom for accomodating
these users, you might as well add the three or four lines of code it
takes to make them happy. I was really just commenting on the
vehemence of the viewpoint, that it seemed to me was unsubstantiated
by any pragmatic (as opposed to political) concern.

However, there's not going to be any hands-tieing either way. Forking
a library, or even simply editing it in situ, is not the end of the
world. But I'd be interested to know just how many users there are out
there who haven't installed ruby-gems (including Ryan).

> 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
> users.

Hey, I do that all the time with my users. :) RSpec admittedly does
have a somewhat larger installed base.

///ark


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list