You call my statement about downloading a .dll a "snobby remark" and yet you're contradicting yourself by essentially admitting I'm right... you WOULD rather have Khaled start supporting DCX just so you dont have to download a 200kb dll file.
-Funnily enough having to included dcx.dll in the download is a big set back for ALOT of scripters, i've heard this numerous times (myself excluded).
We wouldn't want scripters to have a setback in packaging their scripts! Let's just make Khaled agree to support DCX just so those scripters won't be hassled! While we're at it, writing the script is also a setback.. maybe Khaled should do that for them too.
When I release my dlls, I find packaging the VC2005 C Lib Redistributable to be a "setback", as well as any dependent libs I might need for the dll. You know what that's called, though? Reality.
-And for the general public loading dcx could be too advanced. There's a number of scripts out there that simply state get DCX.
A script shouldn't state "get DCX", it should come packaged with the dependencies it needs. That's how I would do it with DCX, or with my Ruby dll, or with my JS dll, or with my Tcl dll, or anything else I would write with an external dependency. I'm not sure of DCX's licensing issues but I'll bet there is no substantial license, so it's not a big deal. It's what a scripter is *expected* to do-- make their script work out of the box. If it means adding half a meg to your download, it's the choice you made when you decided to use the library to begin with. I'm not sure why you're treating scripters like victims here.
As for SSL, it can't be packaged for legal reasons AFAIK.
I don't think scripts need any form of "standardization". The community isn't really all
that big, and anyone looking for an mp3 script by <someone> can likely find it on one of a few sites. I think you're really overexaggerating this issue, I've never seen script redistribution as big a deal as you're making it.
