It seems that the difference is only in your conception. I don't see
how exposing functionality as a library stops shoes from being
everything you think it should be. They are not mutually exclusive. It
would imply that it would be maintained going forward, and maybe that's
too much to ask.
John Thiels wrote:
I'm not a professional programmer but I joined this list a while back
because I believed in why's manifesto on creating something for beginning
programmers, especially children or young adolescents and both tried Ruby
and read why's books. Since I'm not a programmer, I haven't had much to
contribute but have followed the threads. Why's work is truly amazing and
I learned a lot from them (not a prof geek but an anthropologist here).
Unless I'm really misreading the list, I sense that there's been a move
away from this earlier goal for a while as people are working really hard
on improving shoes's functionality and universal application in OSs, but
I'm not reading a lot about that larger set of goals that shoes came out
of. Is shoes to be (yet another) really helpful and multifunctional Ruby
library, or is shoes to be the realization of why's manifesto for a toolkit
that will enable those little fingers to grasp and fry up their own chunky
bacon?
Hope I'm not out in left field--any other thoughts?
John
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:07:32 -0400, doki_pen <[email protected]> wrote:
From what I've read in the archive, it's not a priority for why, but he
will accept a patch. Any other news?
Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Has there been any discussion of what it would take to build shoes as a
real Ruby library, so that it can be used in ruby scripts?
-
