[ANN] RubyGems 0.8.4

ruby-talk
41

"Premshree Pillai" <premshree.pillai@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bbe2162d050105094944686829@mail.gmail.com...
>>
>> > No company hires a person based on his language skills
>>
>> Add ...alone, and I agree.
>>
>> > -- unless the company is run by a bunch of retards.
>>
>> If the task of the employed is to maintain and extend large existing
>> applications, knowledge of the language used becomes a prerequisite. And
>
> Yes, knowledge of the domain language is _important_, but _secondary_.
> Problem solving skills come first.
>
> Also, a lot of organizations hire people based on their
> problem-solving skills alone -- i.e., whether or not the person knows
> the _required_ domain knowledge -- and train them on stuff that the
> organization uses. (This is true of most big organizations in India;
> smaller companies, generally, do not have a training process.)

Could it be that different organizations have different priorities for
different jobs?

Yes, of course! In such cases knowledge of the language alone might
suffice -- after all, everybody has a non-zero skill level :). (I hope
I understood your question right.)

···

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 03:21:31 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 02:41:31 +0900, Oliver Cromm > > <lispamateur@internet.uqam.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:26:56 +0900, Premshree Pillai wrote:

Kind regards

    robert

>> this is not a rare scenario. Although it becomes more and more possible
>> to integrate modules from different languages, for maintainability
>> reasons this is not always favorable.
>> --
>> Oliver C.
>> 45n31, 73w34
>> Temperatur: -10°C (-16)
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Premshree Pillai
> Premshree's (品速力) Personal Weblog — LiveJournal
>
>
>

--
Premshree Pillai

42

Hi.

I do have friends who work on Visual Basic and stuff (MS technologies,
broadly speking). I don't know if it's some kinda mutual understanding
or not, but we never speak much about tech stuff that we know would
inevitably lead us to arguments.

Kind of talking about religion and soccer, at least here on Brazil. :slight_smile:

- ----------------------------
Eustáquio "TaQ" Rangel
eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com

Usuário GNU/Linux no. 224050

43

> Hello Premshree,
>
> > Very right. But I *tend* to call people who don't use dynamic,
> > strong-typed languages losers. :wink:

And just to clear things up, I wasn't very serious anyway, that's why the ";)".

···

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:34:14 +0530, Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 21:54:58 +0900, Lothar Scholz > <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:

>
> Can you please give me a hint about the language you have in mind.
>
> From my knowledge of around 25 languages it seems that only LISP with
> heavy use of (the 'integer 'x) statements are both dynamic and strong
> typed.
>
> Calling ruby users "losers" in this newsgroup is a little bit strange.
> or do you mean "dynamic typed languages" ?

I'm a strong proponent of Ruby, I wouldn't say anything like that.

Ruby is dynamic and strong typed, isn't it? I have a feeling this
discussion is going to head toward defining what typing means. :-S

>
> --
> Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
> Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
> CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
>
>

--
Premshree Pillai
Premshree's (品速力) Personal Weblog — LiveJournal

--
Premshree Pillai

44

> From my knowledge of around 25 languages it seems that only LISP with
> heavy use of (the 'integer 'x) statements are both dynamic and strong
> typed.

Resources which claim that Ruby/Python are strongly dynamically typed languages

Weblogs Forum - Typing: Strong vs. Weak, Static vs. Dynamic
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=strong%20typing

Bruce Eckel got it wrong in an article some time ago when he equated
"statically-typed" with "strongly-typed", but I thought the Ruby
community have always agreed that Ruby is strongly-typed....

Ruby checks for type constraint violations. Strong typed behaviour.

However, I must also add that the "typing issue" is an unresolved one,
if I may say so. Unresolved not because there are ambiguities, but
people have -- to use a cliche -- agreed to disagree about what
"constitutes" the different typing types.

···

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:09:10 +0900, Gavri Fernandez <gavri.fernandez@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 21:54:58 +0900, Lothar Scholz > <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:

gavri

--
Premshree Pillai

45

Hi!

XML can be much less verbose if you use attributes instead of child elements
when the data they hold is a simple value as opposed to a paragraph of text.

Yeah, agree! Is the way you do things. :slight_smile:
But is not me that thinks XML is evil ehehe.

I used to think XSLT was cool until I got tired of how verbose it is and how
often solutions in XSLT require recursion. I now prefer XQuery over XSLT.
Currently though there aren't many good XQuery implementations. One of the
better ones now is Saxon.

But they are coming! :slight_smile:

Regards,

- ----------------------------
Eustáquio "TaQ" Rangel
eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com

Usuário GNU/Linux no. 224050

46

http://www.eod.com/devil/archive/xml.html

Beside YAML, you might want to take a look at PL:

http://alt.textdrive.com/pl/

Cheers,

PA.

···

On Jan 05, 2005, at 15:53, R. Mark Volkmann wrote:

I changed the subject because this has really gone off topic.

47

I changed the subject because this has really gone off topic.

Quoting "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com>:

> > Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.
>
> This XML stuff is weird. Seems that a lot of people have a bad idea about
> it because of the *huge* XML files a lot of Java stuff needs. I agree that
> there's a lot of mess around there, a lot of no necessary complexity, but
> this kind of generalization is not healthy.
>
> I know YAML is very, very more simple than XML, but XML is helping us to
> make the web more well-designed and with more semantics.
>
> Try to give a look on XML with XSLT, it can make some cool stuff.

XML can be much less verbose if you use attributes instead of child elements
when the data they hold is a simple value as opposed to a paragraph of text.

Well, you can't attribute that as _XML's_ fault, can you? I mean it's
upto the person who implements the thing to decide what the right way
to do it is.

···

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:53:37 +0900, R. Mark Volkmann <mark@ociweb.com> wrote:

For example, compare this

<car>
  <make>BMW</make>
  <model>Z3</model>
  <color>yellow</color>
</car>

to this

<car make="BMW" model="Z3" color="yellow"/>

I used to think XSLT was cool until I got tired of how verbose it is and how
often solutions in XSLT require recursion. I now prefer XQuery over XSLT.
Currently though there aren't many good XQuery implementations. One of the
better ones now is Saxon.

--
R. Mark Volkmann
Partner, Object Computing, Inc.

--
Premshree Pillai

48

Mikael Brockman wrote:

"Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com> writes:

Hi!

Good day!

Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.

This XML stuff is weird. Seems that a lot of people have a bad idea about
it because of the *huge* XML files a lot of Java stuff needs. I agree that
there's a lot of mess around there, a lot of no necessary complexity, but
this kind of generalization is not healthy.

As you've noticed, my post is a gigantic generalization. Sorry about
that.

I dont think you need to clarify or apologize for anything. Stereotypes don't exist by fluke. I do 90% of my programming at work in Java, and 10% in Ruby (although 95% of my side projects in Ruby).

With myself using Java extensively I don't mind what you said at all, you can never please everybody with any opinion, and I enjoyed reading your. =)

Zach

49

Hi!

As you've noticed, my post is a gigantic generalization. Sorry about
that.

No need for apologize. :slight_smile:

I like using XML to store documents, and XSLT is pretty neat, too. What
I don't like about Java culture is how it tends to overuse XML for
configuring stuff that should be done in code. See Rails vs any of the
overengineered Java web stuff.

Yeah, that really mades me sick also. Everything needs to be *huge*, and if
it's not, they say you don't know what you're talking about. Argh. :-p

I agree with you. People used to the Java mentality try to use it in
Ruby, too. But that stuff doesn't survive in Ruby's culture. People
used to the Ruby mentality will probably apply it to Java development,
and I'm not sure what will happen. Maybe the recent undercurrents of
simplicity are due to Pythonic and Rubian influence.

Yeah, the best thing I see when learning some languages is making this kind
of "filter". You become wondering how things works and it's a very cool thing.

Thanks God I never used J2EE or EJB's and never tempted by it. :slight_smile:

Me neither. :slight_smile:

Oooofs. They missed us. :slight_smile:

You could hire yourself and give you some cool tips about programming. :slight_smile:

Yes, that would be fun!

I bet all of us wants a chance like that. Go back on the past and say "hey,
you stupid, what are you doing, check this out, now!" ehehe. :slight_smile:

I'm not disputing that excellent Java/C++/C#/VB developers exist. I
just think they're a lot rarer than excellent Rubyists, Pythonistas,
Smalltalkers, or Lispers.

Now you got a point. Seems that there's some kind of people that are more
convicted to others (even on those languages, but they do exist) on some,
let me say, "alternatives" languages.

Don't accuse me of stuff like that. I wouldn't try to *stop* my
employees from doing whatever they like in their spare time. But I'd
certainly ask them about it before I'd hire them. Because if a
candidate works on open source projects in Ruby in his spare time,
that's a fantastic sign.

No, was not a really serious accusation. Sorry about that. I put a :slight_smile: on
the end but sometimes is hard to express here this kind of thing. :slight_smile:

Indeed. If I were on that project, I'd suck it up and use Java in a
heartbeat. Maybe I'd see if one of the JVM dynamic languages would
work. If not, sure, use Java! The great Ruby coders I hired can
probably adapt to anything. :slight_smile:

Yeah, do it on Java but when put it to work start to find a turn-around.
:slight_smile: I made this with a software here, because I just knew how to do that in
Java, but learned how to make in Python and now propabilly I'll convert it
to Ruby. As it's a software that runs on the server, no problem to make
this kind of thing, users don't are bothered about that. :slight_smile:

Hey, it's nice to talk with you guys. :slight_smile:

Best regards,

- ----------------------------
Eustáquio "TaQ" Rangel
eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com

Usuário GNU/Linux no. 224050

50

Quoting Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai@gmail.com>:

···

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:53:37 +0900, R. Mark Volkmann <mark@ociweb.com> wrote:
> I changed the subject because this has really gone off topic.
>
> Quoting "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com>:
>
> > > Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.
> >
> > This XML stuff is weird. Seems that a lot of people have a bad idea about
> > it because of the *huge* XML files a lot of Java stuff needs. I agree
that
> > there's a lot of mess around there, a lot of no necessary complexity, but
> > this kind of generalization is not healthy.
> >
> > I know YAML is very, very more simple than XML, but XML is helping us to
> > make the web more well-designed and with more semantics.
> >
> > Try to give a look on XML with XSLT, it can make some cool stuff.
>
> XML can be much less verbose if you use attributes instead of child
elements
> when the data they hold is a simple value as opposed to a paragraph of
text.

Well, you can't attribute that as _XML's_ fault, can you? I mean it's
upto the person who implements the thing to decide what the right way
to do it is.

Exactly right. Pretty much any tool can be abused. I'll bet it's even possible
to write bad Ruby code. :wink:

--
R. Mark Volkmann
Partner, Object Computing, Inc.

51

Zach Dennis <zdennis@mktec.com> writes:

Mikael Brockman wrote:
> "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Hi!
> Good day!
>
>>> Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.
>>
>>This XML stuff is weird. Seems that a lot of people have a bad idea about
>>it because of the *huge* XML files a lot of Java stuff needs. I agree that
>>there's a lot of mess around there, a lot of no necessary complexity, but
>>this kind of generalization is not healthy.
> As you've noticed, my post is a gigantic generalization. Sorry about
> that.

I dont think you need to clarify or apologize for
anything. Stereotypes don't exist by fluke. I do 90% of my programming
at work in Java, and 10% in Ruby (although 95% of my side projects in
Ruby).

You have a good chance of being employed by the hugely successful Mikael
Brockman Software Corporation!!

52

Also, document versus data markup are recognized as having different
needs. However, the benefit of having only one standard was assumed to
outweight the extra complexity of data markup. However, YAML does
prove the benefit of a light-weight data-centric markup quite nicely-
at least in a language like Ruby.

Also, I think it's important to consider the full suite of XML tools-
XML, XPath, XQuery, Schemas (DTD, Schema, RelaxNG) and XSLT (less for
this one)- and the ultimate user audience (programmers, sys admins or
business users). Again this speaks to why you would want one
standard. I'm currently migrating a YAML prototype to XML so I can
considering deploying to business users who hate technology. The
verbose end tags in XML help here, as do schemas and end-user editing
tools.

RelaxNG fixes a lot of schema issues. The main issue with XML
remaining, IMHO, is XSLT. An alternate light-weight text syntax is a
nice idea, but there are some cool tools that do that, with
appropriate translations back and forth. And editors can simulate that
for the user as well (though that is less then ideal, since it may not
be in your favorite editor).

For the most part, I think XML and Java make a good fit. I'm more
comfortable with xml for configuration files I don't right myself.
Better error checking, schema validation, etc. And Java's verbosity
makes XMLs verbosity comparitively less intrusive for configuring
services, parameters, etc.

Nick

···

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:40:06 +0900, R. Mark Volkmann <mark@ociweb.com> wrote:

Quoting Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:53:37 +0900, R. Mark Volkmann <mark@ociweb.com> wrote:
> > I changed the subject because this has really gone off topic.
> >
> > Quoting "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com>:
> >
> > > > Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.
> > >
> > > This XML stuff is weird. Seems that a lot of people have a bad idea about
> > > it because of the *huge* XML files a lot of Java stuff needs. I agree
> that
> > > there's a lot of mess around there, a lot of no necessary complexity, but
> > > this kind of generalization is not healthy.
> > >
> > > I know YAML is very, very more simple than XML, but XML is helping us to
> > > make the web more well-designed and with more semantics.
> > >
> > > Try to give a look on XML with XSLT, it can make some cool stuff.
> >
> > XML can be much less verbose if you use attributes instead of child
> elements
> > when the data they hold is a simple value as opposed to a paragraph of
> text.
>
> Well, you can't attribute that as _XML's_ fault, can you? I mean it's
> upto the person who implements the thing to decide what the right way
> to do it is.

Exactly right. Pretty much any tool can be abused. I'll bet it's even possible
to write bad Ruby code. :wink:

--
R. Mark Volkmann
Partner, Object Computing, Inc.

--
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg

53

* Nicholas Van Weerdenburg <vanweerd@gmail.com> [0115 18:15]:

For the most part, I think XML and Java make a good fit. I'm more
comfortable with xml for configuration files I don't right myself.
Better error checking, schema validation, etc. And Java's verbosity
makes XMLs verbosity comparitively less intrusive for configuring
services, parameters, etc.

I think that's the clincher in a lot of the Java uses of XML.
If you can use a code generator to build classes from XML, you only have
to write XML, which is marginally less awful than having to write Java.....

I initially saw YAML as A Better XML and started writing everything I could
in it until someone pointed out that ruby isn't much more verbose than YAML,
and it's easier to test and debug, so now I tend to write the data as ruby
in the first place.

Course if you need to talk to other systems these days you need to speak XML,
but that's no reason to infect all your code with it...

Similar ideas expressed here:

(ignore the p word there, just / down to "XML is not the answer")...

···

--
'In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.'
    -- The Guide
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

54

Hi!

I think that's the clincher in a lot of the Java uses of XML.
If you can use a code generator to build classes from XML, you only have
to write XML, which is marginally less awful than having to write Java.....

Hey, I do that with PHP. :slight_smile:
Check this out: http://phpreports.sourceforge.net

- ----------------------------
Eustáquio "TaQ" Rangel
eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com

Usuário GNU/Linux no. 224050

55

You might like Lua then:

It's started life as a data description format and is now a full fledged scripting language:

http://www.lua.org/history.html

Cheers,

PA.

···

On Jan 05, 2005, at 21:31, Dick Davies wrote:

so now I tend to write the data as ruby
in the first place.