[Rubygems-developers] What plans now?

Ryan Leavengood mrcode1234 at yahoo.com
Mon May 17 12:19:36 EDT 2004

--- Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair at soyabean.com.au> wrote:
> Everything I've seen with continuations has been rather difficult to
> understand at first.  I get it after a while but can never imagine
> coming up with the code myself.

I spent several hours a few weeks ago trying to wrap my head around
continuations and how they work in Ruby, but they still confuse me as well. 
They just require a different way of thinking, and that can take a little while
to develop in one's mind.

Regarding the overall topic, I'll put in my two cents and some of my original
thoughts about RubyGems.  My basic concept of gems was that they would be
self-contained packets of code, with some amount of meta-data so they were a
little "smarter" than a normal container.  But they would still primarily be
acted upon by outside agents, whether those agents were installers, servers,
documentation browsers or what have you.

So I'm not sure I like the idea of gems being able to install themselves, etc. 
I consider that outside their realm of responsibility, and it overly
complicates the concept of a gem.  If we develop some complex API where gems
can install themselves, resolve their own dependencies, serve themselves to
other machines, etc., we may put people off with the complexity.  I know I can
get a bit overwhelmed when trying to understand some new API and I come across
some "uber-object" that can do everything.  Plus it really isn't OO, is it? 
Sounds more procedural since you are putting everything in one place.

Maybe I just misunderstand what you are saying here, but I do think it requires
more thought.


Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list