Thanks for your thoughtful and useful response, which I only just now saw. Much appreciated.
My root problem is that I'm a busy psychotherapist, with little time but a strong desire to keep learning about programming and ruby. Having watched ruby a lot, and used it very successfully for a few important personal projects and explorations, I'm more than sold on its value to me. Then, watching rspec and cucumber for a while, and having finally become convinced that I need to learn test-driven development, I buy the rspec book, as it appears to be the best way up the mountain.
But I labor always with the handicap of being a perpetual amateur in this domain, so my judgment here is not what I would like. I'm grateful to have access to this and other related discussion lists, for that reason. I continue to marvel at the fact that people genuinely like helping others. In my own field, I do a lot of free advising. Just can't resist, so I DO "get it".
After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above: going ahead with current versions risks little, and the learning is surely going to be more reliably relevant to the current state of things. PLUS, if/when I'm bewildered by something, I can come here. And, so far, there have been no problems.
I'm enjoy the book enormously. It's far more valuable to me than I anticipated. All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make progress continues to be a problem. I just have to do a little at a time.
On 07/31/2013 07:19 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:
On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tom Cloyd <email@example.com> wrote:
Marcus - thanks for your help...
On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:
Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]
I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.
I'm well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are urged to use. I will be running the book's code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.
Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.
It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the authors will come up with an update (it *is* needed for the code alone).
But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I've found is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.
Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get on with learning things using what is current?
Tom Cloyd, MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< email@example.com >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)