> Iain Davis wrote: >> That is, I should be able to download, run an installer, click on a >> icon, and starting typing ruby code into an editor that can execute >> the ruby code. :)
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > You can do that already. irb comes standard, and you can use any text > editor for files. If you want to run scripts, "ruby my_script.rb" will > do fine. Where's the problem? Not quite the same. irb can execute code, but (at least I believe this to be true, I'm still new around here...) it isn't an editor. Yes, you can edit code in a text editor, and execute code from the command line...but that doesn't fulfill the criteria. There's still going to be folks that aren't going to be interested in a product where they have to go to the command-line/shell to start using the product. The idea isn't even part of their world-view, even if they have a vague notion of what a shell is. I switch back and forth across the GUI/shell dividing line pretty frequently, but that sort of thing was a complete mystery to most of the people I've worked with in the past. On occasion, when we had projects that there just wasn't GUI tools for, I had do some hand-holding through those portions of the project. My own preference right now for Ruby/Rails is Emacs+shell, but I've worked with folks for whom that'd be an exercise in frustration. Both come from an entirely different world than the one they know. I think the question to ask is: As Rubyists, what do we want them to learn? Ruby. So everything else [installation, editing, execution, debugging] should be provided in a form familiar to the target audience and arranged so that it is transparent/smooth. Whatever the solution (IDE or some other clever idea) it should follow the conventions of the platform/OS it is being installed/used on. Absolutely nothing wrong with Shell+Favorite text editor. That's a route I go often. For me, it is the fastest route to producing code, because I already know that environment. Eclipse was a frustration to me, because I needed to be writing code (Java at the time), but instead I was spending the time learning Eclipse. Eventually, I'll have to admit the bias that created and give Eclipse another try. :) However, the combination of tools that I find familiar and comforting, could be an exercise in frustration for someone else. For instance, someone very familiar with Eclipse would be much happier learning Ruby on that platform (provided the platform supports Ruby). It is frustrating to have X to be your goal, and have to slog through Y and Z. I admit, it may not be possible to provide comfortable and familiar tools to every potential Rubyist. On the other hand, there's no reason not to try. If a new IDE brings in another segment of the audience, there's that many more folks using and a few them helping to improve Ruby. We all benefit from an influx of new ideas from a segment of the population previously unrepresented. Okay, I'll stop flogging this horse, I already have a far longer message than necessary. :) Iain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
