<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ActiveSupport Considered Harmful</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 19:43:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Pitale</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28867</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Pitale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28867</guid>
		<description>One word: gemsets. RVM gemsets help massively when trying to avoid needing the latest version of a gem for a dependency, whilst another rails project needs an older version. That, and AS 3 should improve the situation greatly.

On the other hand, I agree completely. It&#039;s tough sometimes to balance the niceties and recreating the wheel. Generally, I would err on the side avoiding AS as a gem dependency if possible. Unless, of course, you&#039;re building a gem with the intent of using it with Rails.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One word: gemsets. RVM gemsets help massively when trying to avoid needing the latest version of a gem for a dependency, whilst another rails project needs an older version. That, and AS 3 should improve the situation greatly.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I agree completely. It&#8217;s tough sometimes to balance the niceties and recreating the wheel. Generally, I would err on the side avoiding AS as a gem dependency if possible. Unless, of course, you&#8217;re building a gem with the intent of using it with Rails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew W</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28862</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28862</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t agree more.

In general (but in particular as a non-rails ruby user), I am really reluctant to introduce any gems with ActiveSupport dependencies just because of the sheer volume of stuff which ActiveSupport adds. More modularity may help with that, but at the time of recent versions of ActiveSupport don&#039;t seem to provide any way to avoid loading activesupport/json - which as noted clashes nastily with any native (JRuby or C extension) json library you have loaded. This is a very real problem for us and has stopped us using some pretty basic and important gems like &#039;mail&#039;.

If you&#039;re writing a library for wide re-use, please don&#039;t be selfish - keep your dependencies to a minimum, and don&#039;t introduce any dependencies which clash with other libraries in common use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more.</p>
<p>In general (but in particular as a non-rails ruby user), I am really reluctant to introduce any gems with ActiveSupport dependencies just because of the sheer volume of stuff which ActiveSupport adds. More modularity may help with that, but at the time of recent versions of ActiveSupport don&#8217;t seem to provide any way to avoid loading activesupport/json &#8211; which as noted clashes nastily with any native (JRuby or C extension) json library you have loaded. This is a very real problem for us and has stopped us using some pretty basic and important gems like &#8216;mail&#8217;.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re writing a library for wide re-use, please don&#8217;t be selfish &#8211; keep your dependencies to a minimum, and don&#8217;t introduce any dependencies which clash with other libraries in common use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Meiklejohn</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28861</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Meiklejohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28861</guid>
		<description>Completely agree.  

Working with rightaws, and the appoxy fork of it, outside of rails has proven to be very problematic due to reliance on multiple activesupport methods added to String.  I consistently find my self defining things in the local namespace to eliminiate the dependencies.  

Along the same lines, I&#039;ve also noticed multiple methods in activesupport that have been brought back into either ruby 1.9 or ruby1.8.7, where the activesupport dependency is only needed when using 1.8.6 or below.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Completely agree.  </p>
<p>Working with rightaws, and the appoxy fork of it, outside of rails has proven to be very problematic due to reliance on multiple activesupport methods added to String.  I consistently find my self defining things in the local namespace to eliminiate the dependencies.  </p>
<p>Along the same lines, I&#8217;ve also noticed multiple methods in activesupport that have been brought back into either ruby 1.9 or ruby1.8.7, where the activesupport dependency is only needed when using 1.8.6 or below.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avdi Grimm</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28859</link>
		<dc:creator>Avdi Grimm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:37:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28859</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t agree more!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norman Clarke</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28857</link>
		<dc:creator>Norman Clarke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28857</guid>
		<description>The beauty of the MIT License is that it&#039;s perfectly legal and ethical to reuse other people&#039;s code if you give proper attribution. So if you really need only a method or two from ActiveSupport, just copy it and give credit its authors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The beauty of the MIT License is that it&#8217;s perfectly legal and ethical to reuse other people&#8217;s code if you give proper attribution. So if you really need only a method or two from ActiveSupport, just copy it and give credit its authors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wade Duggins</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28856</link>
		<dc:creator>Wade Duggins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28856</guid>
		<description>Someone should get ActiveMerchant to stop requiring it.  Major nightmare.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone should get ActiveMerchant to stop requiring it.  Major nightmare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28855</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28855</guid>
		<description>If you&#039;re just using 1-2 methods in activesupport, one shouldn&#039;t be including the entire library into one&#039;s gem. 

e.g. If someone wanted the convenience of blank? you should just write it yourself instead of including full libraries into your gem.

As Yehuda stated, AS3&#039;s modularity solves much of the reasons why people include all of active support, however, if it is for 1-2 methods, it&#039;s probably better to just write it yourself instead of adding more dependencies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you&#8217;re just using 1-2 methods in activesupport, one shouldn&#8217;t be including the entire library into one&#8217;s gem. </p>
<p>e.g. If someone wanted the convenience of blank? you should just write it yourself instead of including full libraries into your gem.</p>
<p>As Yehuda stated, AS3&#8242;s modularity solves much of the reasons why people include all of active support, however, if it is for 1-2 methods, it&#8217;s probably better to just write it yourself instead of adding more dependencies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hayes</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28854</link>
		<dc:creator>Hayes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28854</guid>
		<description>@saurik @yehuda Re: scoped namespaces. I wasn&#039;t aware of that. Sounds interesting but like it&#039;s still early days yet. I&#039;ll read up on it.

@yehuda @julio I&#039;ve definitely been following the work on AS 3 and I really appreciate the drive toward modularity. I think that will help a lot.

@paul I appreciate the sentiment and I certainly have no desire to see ruby advancement held back by too many legacy concerns but my point here is that if you&#039;re writing a gem, don&#039;t force anything on your users unless it&#039;s absolutely necessary. In most cases, something like ActiveSupport is more about convenience than necessity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@saurik @yehuda Re: scoped namespaces. I wasn&#8217;t aware of that. Sounds interesting but like it&#8217;s still early days yet. I&#8217;ll read up on it.</p>
<p>@yehuda @julio I&#8217;ve definitely been following the work on AS 3 and I really appreciate the drive toward modularity. I think that will help a lot.</p>
<p>@paul I appreciate the sentiment and I certainly have no desire to see ruby advancement held back by too many legacy concerns but my point here is that if you&#8217;re writing a gem, don&#8217;t force anything on your users unless it&#8217;s absolutely necessary. In most cases, something like ActiveSupport is more about convenience than necessity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julio Capote</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28852</link>
		<dc:creator>Julio Capote</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28852</guid>
		<description>Rails 3 is making a huge effort in modularizing ActiveSupport so you only have to include the specifc modules you want. But yea, I agree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rails 3 is making a huge effort in modularizing ActiveSupport so you only have to include the specifc modules you want. But yea, I agree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Curse</title>
		<link>http://hayesdavis.net/2010/07/26/activesupport-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-28851</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Curse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:18:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hayesdavis.net/?p=64#comment-28851</guid>
		<description>&quot;When you’re gemspecin’ and you decide to throw in that latest version of ActiveSupport, well, you’re basically telling every Rails user out there that’s not on the latest version that they need to upgrade their entire environment just to use your gem.&quot;

I present to you bundler and rvm. Welcome to 2010.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;When you’re gemspecin’ and you decide to throw in that latest version of ActiveSupport, well, you’re basically telling every Rails user out there that’s not on the latest version that they need to upgrade their entire environment just to use your gem.&#8221;</p>
<p>I present to you bundler and rvm. Welcome to 2010.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

