On the maintainability of Ruby
On the maintainability of Ruby
Posted Jan 24, 2011 17:48 UTC (Mon) by docwhat (guest, #40373)In reply to: On the maintainability of Ruby by bronson
Parent article: On the maintainability of Ruby
That being said, it's a real pain to maintain. And adding Ruby, with it's brain dead way of determining where things should go, just adds to the pain. (And yes, I know how to change all that, but it's a major pain in the neck. Things like that should be configurable on a system level, not with stupid ENV variables, without manually changing rbconfig.rb).
I totally agree with the criticisms raised in the article. We ship ruby in a commercial product and it's a total pain in the a**.
Ciao!
Posted Jan 24, 2011 20:29 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
And, like you, I tend to install Python, Ruby (and especially rubygems), and Eclipse from source. They just seem to just work better. True, that's a sign of breakage, but I guess it never bothered me much.
Posted Jan 25, 2011 1:53 UTC (Tue)
by docwhat (guest, #40373)
[Link]
Perl is now, mostly, under control for me because Bugzilla (for example) installs the CPAN libraries into it's installation...which is great. Ruby is starting to be better for a similar reason: Bundler.
BTW: The article forgot to mention that unlike other interpreted languages (perl, python) you can install multiple versions of the gems and request specific ones when you 'require' them. Which means that having the Distribution manage the gems is a lot less important -- You can lock them in from the application (manually, or with something like bundler).
Oh, and one more thing. RVM can be installed system-wide: http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/deployment/system-wide/
Maybe that should be packaged instead?
Ciao!
On the maintainability of Ruby
On the maintainability of Ruby