On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 10:56:22AM -0500, Mark Baran wrote: > I don't see both distribution channels mutually exclusive. For those of us > with a Ruby installation already, the Gem provides an easy way to manage > the library, while the installer seems as though it will be antiquated by > Hackety Hack.
But how would the gem be easier? I feel like you're suggesting a gem simply because it's what you're used to, not because of any specific merits, yeah? Why not just run Shoes from the commandline? That's pretty easy! I think you should consider Shoes as slightly more than a library. It is an environment. I am not competing with wxRuby, FXRuby, QTRuby or Ruby/TK. The runtime is closer to REBOL/View or Adobe Air or Firefox. And by beginners I also mean: folks who download your Shoes program and want to run it without the hassle of installing Ruby and all the other libs. > I don't really see the shy format being a limitation. Wouldn't the > shy format simply be data for shoes, an argument you can pass to the > command line? Sure, there should be a repo of shy programs but they should > be managed by a special manager within shoes. You download a shy and you double-click it. It runs like an app. It's managed like any other app: in your Applications folder or Start Menu or in /usr/local/bin. You know what I mean? I want these to be bona fide little progs. _why
