|
|
|
|
|
|
by shevy
6509 days ago
|
|
|
You can use ruby without gems. I think you confuse gems with "pure" ruby as such. I have seen horribly code in gems and I think the whole gems idea is the wrong solution. But I am in a minority here. I also do not know why cpan is mentiond FIRST as perl's greatest assets. To me i think a language should easily provide the capabilities to the programmer without addons, AND I also think that there SHOULD BE ONLY ONE "CPAN" FOR ALL THE SCRIPTING LANGUAGES OUT THERE. I find it totally silly that there are any distinctions at all. But back to gems: I for example am using Ruby since almost 5 years without gems. Others seem to like it that you can simply do "gem install rails" and thats it (unless the debian package manager starts to hate it again... which is btw another thing that sucks.) I agree that there are people who are concerned with "namespace" pollution, but I simply think so many people are trying to overemphasize. The worst was when I talked to a C# hardcore guy. He basically claimed that being flexible like Ruby is ALWAYS bad (C# does not allow you to change core methods. You must subclass and change that new class then. This is not a smart solution, it simply binds and restricts the developer, and claims that this will be better in the long run. My question is - why not allow being flexible AT THE CHOOSING OF THE DEVELOPER IN QUESTION? The reason is simple. C# is a typical language that is developed from the top-down. It would be so much better if creating good languages would be a lot easier, so noone has to cater to arrogant developers who try to impose their thinking pattern onto your brain. |
|
|
In fact I can think of a common one, that many people forget, we often forget the gem include (being why rails includes it for you).