[Adv] Ruby Tutorial for beginners

ruby-talk
1

Hi All,

This is to let you know that my good friend, Satish Talim has put together
an excellent site – Learning Ruby here –
http://sitekreator.com/satishtalim/index.html

This is based on his Ruby study notes made while he studied Ruby himself,
from various online Ruby resources like tutorials, blogs and Ruby
documentation. A site I would definitely recommend for Ruby newbies.

Thanks
Dibya Prakash

2

Neat thanks for the heads up.

···

On 10/14/06, Dibya Prakash <prakash.dibya@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

This is to let you know that my good friend, Satish Talim has put together
an excellent site – Learning Ruby here –
- Log In

This is based on his Ruby study notes made while he studied Ruby himself,
from various online Ruby resources like tutorials, blogs and Ruby
documentation. A site I would definitely recommend for Ruby newbies.

Thanks
Dibya Prakash

3

Hi Dibya,

···

On 10/14/06, Dibya Prakash <prakash.dibya@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

This is to let you know that my good friend, Satish Talim has put together
an excellent site – Learning Ruby here –
- Log In

Great turtorial, It was covered what a newbie need to learn about Ruby.

Thanks for the info, also thanks to Satish for a great Ruby stuff.

Regards,
--
Firman Wandayandi <http://firmanw.org/&gt;

4

One quick question in one of his examples he states that using single
quotes for strings is more efficient, why is this?

···

On 10/14/06, Kevin Olemoh <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote:

Neat thanks for the heads up.

On 10/14/06, Dibya Prakash <prakash.dibya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is to let you know that my good friend, Satish Talim has put together
> an excellent site – Learning Ruby here –
> - Log In
>
> This is based on his Ruby study notes made while he studied Ruby himself,
> from various online Ruby resources like tutorials, blogs and Ruby
> documentation. A site I would definitely recommend for Ruby newbies.
>
> Thanks
> Dibya Prakash
>

5

Thanks Firman

···

On 10/14/06, Firman Wandayandi <firmanw@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Dibya,

On 10/14/06, Dibya Prakash <prakash.dibya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is to let you know that my good friend, Satish Talim has put
together
> an excellent site – Learning Ruby here –
> - Log In

Great turtorial, It was covered what a newbie need to learn about Ruby.

Thanks for the info, also thanks to Satish for a great Ruby stuff.

--
Dibya Prakash
Blog: http://dibya.wordpress.com

Regards,

--
Firman Wandayandi <http://firmanw.org/&gt;

6

I believe the theory goes that using single quotes means that there is no
interperlation required, and therefore less work for the interpereter. Thus
faster.

This was discussed here a few of weeks ago, with some benchmarks that seemed
to indicate that there
really isn't much difference between the two.

I'm not sure that the thread ended up reaching a conclusion though.

···

On 10/14/06, Kevin Olemoh <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote:

One quick question in one of his examples he states that using single
quotes for strings is more efficient, why is this?

7

I see thanks for the info.

···

On 10/14/06, Daniel N <has.sox@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/14/06, Kevin Olemoh <darkintent@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One quick question in one of his examples he states that using single
> quotes for strings is more efficient, why is this?
>
I believe the theory goes that using single quotes means that there is no
interperlation required, and therefore less work for the interpereter. Thus
faster.

This was discussed here a few of weeks ago, with some benchmarks that seemed
to indicate that there
really isn't much difference between the two.

I'm not sure that the thread ended up reaching a conclusion though.

8

Daniel N wrote:
> I'm not sure that the thread ended up reaching a conclusion though.

No, it didn't. The hypothesis was that the *parser* has a little easier time with non-interpolated strings, and the benchmarks didn't test that. They had N.times { "blah blah" } when they should have had N.times { eval '"blah blah"' }.

That said, it's hardly a reason to go for single quotes. I mean, the quintessence of premature optimization dude. /That/ said, I think the singles make less line noise.

Devin

9

Yes, the reason for single over double quotes isn't about performance.

Personally, I try (or at least tend) to use single quotes unless I
need something which they don't give me like interpolation and escaped
characters.

···

On 10/14/06, Devin Mullins <twifkak@comcast.net> wrote:

Daniel N wrote:
> I'm not sure that the thread ended up reaching a conclusion though.

No, it didn't. The hypothesis was that the *parser* has a little easier
time with non-interpolated strings, and the benchmarks didn't test that.
They had N.times { "blah blah" } when they should have had N.times {
eval '"blah blah"' }.

That said, it's hardly a reason to go for single quotes. I mean, the
quintessence of premature optimization dude. /That/ said, I think the
singles make less line noise.

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

10

We did that too:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/216376

James Edward Gray II

···

On Oct 14, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Devin Mullins wrote:

Daniel N wrote:
> I'm not sure that the thread ended up reaching a conclusion though.

No, it didn't. The hypothesis was that the *parser* has a little easier time with non-interpolated strings, and the benchmarks didn't test that. They had N.times { "blah blah" } when they should have had N.times { eval '"blah blah"' }.

11

Devin Mullins wrote:

Daniel N wrote:
> I'm not sure that the thread ended up reaching a conclusion though.

No, it didn't. The hypothesis was that the *parser* has a little easier time with non-interpolated strings, and the benchmarks didn't test that. They had N.times { "blah blah" } when they should have had N.times { eval '"blah blah"' }.

That said, it's hardly a reason to go for single quotes. I mean, the quintessence of premature optimization dude. /That/ said, I think the singles make less line noise.

A common convention is to use single quotes unless there is
a reason to use double quotes. I sometimes follow that, but
frequently forget.

I find the double quotes more intuitive, but it's a microscopic
difference and probably has to do with my years of C and BASIC
(notwithstanding the years of Pascal and Fortran).

Hal

12

Same here....

Thanks

Dibya Prakash
Blog: http://dibya.wordpress.com

···

On 10/15/06, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/14/06, Devin Mullins <twifkak@comcast.net> wrote:

Personally, I try (or at least tend) to use single quotes unless I
need something which they don't give me like interpolation and escaped
characters.

--

Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

13

Hal Fulton wrote:

I find the double quotes more intuitive, but it's a microscopic
difference and probably has to do with my years of C and BASIC
(notwithstanding the years of Pascal and Fortran).

Seconded. Though recently, my fingers protest against my Java day job
where double-quotes are the only thing I hit Shift for. (I make heavy,
heavy abuse of autocomplete.)

David Vallner

14

I am developing a Ruby tutorial as well. I will be covering CGI
integration and database programming too. I will also try ti hit web
caching and cookies for web programmers.

http://www.meshplex.org/wiki/Ruby/Ruby_on_Rails_programming_tutorials

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

15

Seriously? What about common operators like "+", "*", "&&", and "||"?
I don't see how autocomplete would help with those.

···

On Oct 15 2006, 12:06 pm, David Vallner <d...@vallner.net> wrote:

Seconded. Though recently, my fingers protest against my Java day job
where double-quotes are the only thing I hit Shift for. (I make heavy,
heavy abuse of autocomplete.)