i think the documentation at http://www.ruby-doc.org/ is fairly
useless.
is there a better one?
i think the documentation at http://www.ruby-doc.org/ is fairly
useless.
is there a better one?
According to what standards?
robert
2008/5/27 <notnorwegian@yahoo.se>:
i think the documentation at http://www.ruby-doc.org/ is fairly
useless.is there a better one?
--
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
What sort of documentation are you looking for reference? tutorial?
At what level? Beginner, intermediate, expert? notnorwegian@yahoo.se wrote:
i think the documentation at http://www.ruby-doc.org/ is fairly
useless.is there a better one?
The pickaxe book is probably better overall.
And there is some rails-powered site ... noobkit, which is ok, though
missing some things as well.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
I find ruby-doc to be great. But if you are looking for a tutorial, it
probably isn't the place to go. It is much better as a reference.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Ron Fox <fox@nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
What sort of documentation are you looking for reference? tutorial?
At what level? Beginner, intermediate, expert? > > > > notnorwegian@yahoo.se wrote:i think the documentation at http://www.ruby-doc.org/ is fairly
useless.is there a better one?
The pickaxe is actually linked from the site the OP mentioned.
robert
2008/5/27 Marc Heiler <shevegen@linuxmail.org>:
The pickaxe book is probably better overall.
--
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
posting, you can however post in between. In that case your post will
refer to the text above by convention :).
ruby-doc is great I agree, and there are most useful links to widely
accepted books and even tutorials.
Cheers
Robert
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:58 PM, James Bracy <waratuman86@gmail.com> wrote:
I find ruby-doc to be great. But if you are looking for a tutorial, it
probably isn't the place to go. It is much better as a reference.
--
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/
---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Many others don't mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long, prefer top posting. I don't know where the anti-toppers always seem to feel that they can speak for everyone else.
///ark
On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Robert Dober wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:58 PM, James Bracy <waratuman86@gmail.com> > wrote:
I find ruby-doc to be great. But if you are looking for a tutorial, it
probably isn't the place to go. It is much better as a reference.
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
posting
What's top or bottom posting anyway?
I just want to learn the "right" way to post or answer (which I hardly do
since I am a neophyte).
Thanks
Victor
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com> wrote:
On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Robert Dober wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:58 PM, James Bracy <waratuman86@gmail.com> >> wrote:
I find ruby-doc to be great. But if you are looking for a tutorial, it
probably isn't the place to go. It is much better as a reference.Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
posting
Many others don't mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long,
prefer top posting. I don't know where the anti-toppers always seem to feel
that they can speak for everyone else.///ark
There probably are no "pro-toppers." But I would imagine that there are people, like myself, who would rather not have to scroll to read a post. I would also imagine that many agnostics bottom-post (even if it's less efficient) just to avoid the anti-toppers.
i agree that if you're replying point by point to someone, interposting (which is a form of bottom-posting) is the way to go. I also think most people quote way too heavily (out of laziness). Finally, I think some people need to learn to use email, instead of quoting three pages, then sticking "Thanks!" at the bottom.
I've been doing this stuff since 1984. It's only been relatively recently that I've seen the insistence that bottoming is the "one true way" and the attempted intimidation of anyone who doesn't agree.
///ark
On May 27, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Tobias Weber wrote:
In article <0D16738A-F1A2-4DB9-87E9-FEC81AF636CF@mwilden.com>,
Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com> wrote:Many others don't mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long,
prefer top posting. I don't know where the anti-toppers always seem to
feel that they can speak for everyone else.In Usenet pro-toppers are extremely rare.
I have never seen anybody plead for top posting, I have however very
often seen people asking kindly or humorously to bottom post.
If you prefer top posts that seems to be unlucky for you especially as
you did not ask either kindly nor humorously.
I however do not take any offense and I was not speaking for others
but transmitting information gathered over the years.
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
and what happens when somebody is top posting.
Please note also that nobody ever has been agressed when kindly asking
not to top post, as it just happened to me I am afraid that maybe I
was not kind enough, if this is the case all my apologies.
It however remains my intimate conviction that bottom posting is the
accepted standard on this list, but if all of those who prefer top
posting speak up, things might change.
Cheers
Robert
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com> wrote:
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
postingMany others don't mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long, prefer
top posting. I don't know where the anti-toppers always seem to feel that
they can speak for everyone else.
--
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/
---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
This is top posting.
What's top or bottom posting anyway?
This is bottom posting.
I just want to learn the "right" way to post or answer (which I hardly do
since I am a neophyte).Thanks
Victor
This is bottom posting a conclusion.
Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
Some mail readers work better this way, as well.
hth,
Todd
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Victor Reyes <victor.reyes@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never seen anybody plead for top posting
You're missing my point. No one would plead for top posting. What I was referring to is the anti-toppers who tell people that bottom-posting is the standard. It's not, as any casual observance of Usenet posts would tell you.
I have however very
often seen people asking kindly or humorously to bottom post.
I actually haven't seen many kindly requests and I've certainly never seen a humorous request. Generally, the message is "Why are you top-posting?" which implies that it's not even necessary to explain why that's so terrible. (This is basically the original meaning of the phrase "begging the question.")
If you prefer top posts that seems to be unlucky for you especially as
you did not ask either kindly nor humorously.
This may be a language issue, Robert. I didn't ask anyone to do anything.
I however do not take any offense and I was not speaking for others
but transmitting information gathered over the years.
I'll match my years against your years.
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
and what happens when somebody is top posting.
I don't know what you mean.
Please note also that nobody ever has been agressed when kindly asking
not to top post
Untrue.
It however remains my intimate conviction that bottom posting is the
accepted standard on this list
I'm curious - why do you think that? Is it because the anti-toppers are the only ones who care deeply enough about the subject to speak up? If so, it's a mistake to impute a standard from that behavior. Again, using statistics as a guide, bottom-posting is not a standard - except to those who believe it is.
but if all of those who prefer top posting speak up, things might change.
I don't know of anyone who prefers top-posting.
Here are my preferences (and I don't generally ask people to follow them):
1. Don't quote when it's not necessary. Most of the time, a very short quote suffices.
2. If you're replying to individual points, then put your responses with each point.
3. Otherwise, I couldn't care less what you do.
///ark
On May 27, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Robert Dober wrote:
As a matter of personal preference, I prefer what seems to be called
"top posting".
While reading, if I've been following a thread, I like to see the new
info first. Replies are often brief and my old eyes sometimes have a
hard time finding where the quoting ends and the reply begins. If I
haven't been following the thread but get interested, I consider it my
responsibility to do the homework and get caught up on previous posts in
the thread.
While replying, I try to write whole sentences that are reasonably
self-explanatory. I usually include (at the bottom) the particular post
that I am replying to - snipped for brevity - just for context.
Point-by-point replies seem understandable to me with inter-posting.
But I still prefer complete sentences and self-explanatory replies.
Again, the quoting simply provides context and is only scanned, not
re-read.
Of course, now I've gone and contributed to a bigger problem - thread
hijacking!
j
James D. Maher
J.D. Maher & Associates, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Dober [mailto:robert.dober@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:07 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: documentation for ruby?
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com> wrote:
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
postingMany others don't mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long,
prefer
top posting. I don't know where the anti-toppers always seem to feel
that
they can speak for everyone else.
I have never seen anybody plead for top posting, I have however very
often seen people asking kindly or humorously to bottom post.
If you prefer top posts that seems to be unlucky for you especially as
you did not ask either kindly nor humorously.
I however do not take any offense and I was not speaking for others
but transmitting information gathered over the years.
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
and what happens when somebody is top posting.
Please note also that nobody ever has been agressed when kindly asking
not to top post, as it just happened to me I am afraid that maybe I
was not kind enough, if this is the case all my apologies.
It however remains my intimate conviction that bottom posting is the
accepted standard on this list, but if all of those who prefer top
posting speak up, things might change.
Cheers
Robert
--
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/
---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
I've been doing this stuff since 1984. It's only been relatively recently that I've seen the insistence that bottoming is the "one true way" and the attempted intimidation of anyone who doesn't agree.
Odd... I've been on Usenet since 1986, but my recollection is
somewhat the opposite.
Seems to me bottom-posted inter-quoting was a well-established
standard on the groups I read back then (comp.sys.amiga, other
programming groups).
If memory serves, the occasional newbie top-post would be met with references to "netiquette", and requests to not only bottom-
post instead, but also trim for context.
My recollection is top-posting was actively discouraged, but overall relatively rare until the advent of AOL, Netscape, and
SLIP/PPP connections which opened the floodgates, allowing
residential users onto the Internet by the millions. . . .
Unleashing an army of newbies armed with news and email software,
which, as has already been mentioned elsewhere on this thread,
encouraged top-posting by default. . .
Quotes should be trimmed.
Agreed 100%
Regards,
Bill
From: "Mark Wilden" <mark@mwilden.com>
This is top posting.
> What's top or bottom posting anyway?
This is bottom posting.
> I just want to learn the "right" way to post or answer (which I hardly do
> since I am a neophyte).
>
> Thanks
>
> VictorThis is bottom posting a conclusion.
Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
Some mail readers work better this way, as well.
hth,
ToddThank you & I guess this is bottom posting!
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Todd Benson <caduceass@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Victor Reyes <victor.reyes@gmail.com> > wrote:
Only if a single email is regarded as a conversation. In actuality, the -thread- is the conversation. Imagine if in a real conversation, people felt impelled to prefix their remarks with every other remark that's already been made.
I bottom post because I don't want to get jumped on by the anti-toppers. But then, I also trim, so it doesn't really matter. What I hate is having to scroll down just to see what's been added to the thread.
///ark
On May 27, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Todd Benson wrote:
Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
It's funny. Friends and acquaintances do this all the time to me,
sometimes with conversations a year old and no reference to stand on,
or barely five minutes old with my _entire_ sent mail tacked on at the
end (sometimes as an attachment, ugh!).
It seems to me we're mostly on the same page. I still lecture my
friends to please at least make an attempt to bottom post for your
shorter replies, and resort to essay replies (put them wherever you
want) for thorough critiques and the like
Todd
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com> wrote:
I don't know of anyone who prefers top-posting.
In article <9A43A375-01EE-41DE-B137-70AF3EABDE54@mwilden.com>,
You're missing my point. No one would plead for top posting. What I
was referring to is the anti-toppers who tell people that bottom-
posting is the standard. It's not, as any casual observance of Usenet
posts would tell you.
What proportion of posts (or posters) are top-posting? Less than
10%, I am sure, and probably less than 5%. By this measure at
least, top-posting is non-standard.
I have however very
often seen people asking kindly or humorously to bottom post.I actually haven't seen many kindly requests and I've certainly never
seen a humorous request. Generally, the message is "Why are you top-
posting?" which implies that it's not even necessary to explain why
that's so terrible. (This is basically the original meaning of the
phrase "begging the question.")
Most responses are rather curt, I agree.
I don't know of anyone who prefers top-posting.
Here are my preferences (and I don't generally ask people to follow
them):1. Don't quote when it's not necessary. Most of the time, a very short
quote suffices.
Agreed.
2. If you're replying to individual points, then put your responses
with each point.
With meaning below, presumably.
3. Otherwise, I couldn't care less what you do.
Or you could care less.
Francis
Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com> wrote:
I top post because Gmail sets it up that way when I hit reply.
This is a fine bikeshed, but let's please get back to Ruby. This
isn't my-usenet-nitpicks-talk.
--Jeremy
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM, James D. Maher <jmaher@jdmaher.com> wrote:
As a matter of personal preference, I prefer what seems to be called
"top posting".While reading, if I've been following a thread, I like to see the new
info first. Replies are often brief and my old eyes sometimes have a
hard time finding where the quoting ends and the reply begins. If I
haven't been following the thread but get interested, I consider it my
responsibility to do the homework and get caught up on previous posts in
the thread.While replying, I try to write whole sentences that are reasonably
self-explanatory. I usually include (at the bottom) the particular post
that I am replying to - snipped for brevity - just for context.Point-by-point replies seem understandable to me with inter-posting.
But I still prefer complete sentences and self-explanatory replies.
Again, the quoting simply provides context and is only scanned, not
re-read.Of course, now I've gone and contributed to a bigger problem - thread
hijacking!j
James D. Maher
J.D. Maher & Associates, Inc.-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Dober [mailto:robert.dober@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:07 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: documentation for ruby?On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Mark Wilden <mark@mwilden.com> wrote:
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
postingMany others don't mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long,
prefer
top posting. I don't know where the anti-toppers always seem to feel
that
they can speak for everyone else.
I have never seen anybody plead for top posting, I have however very
often seen people asking kindly or humorously to bottom post.
If you prefer top posts that seems to be unlucky for you especially as
you did not ask either kindly nor humorously.
I however do not take any offense and I was not speaking for others
but transmitting information gathered over the years.
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
and what happens when somebody is top posting.Please note also that nobody ever has been agressed when kindly asking
not to top post, as it just happened to me I am afraid that maybe I
was not kind enough, if this is the case all my apologies.It however remains my intimate conviction that bottom posting is the
accepted standard on this list, but if all of those who prefer top
posting speak up, things might change.Cheers
Robert--
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
--
http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com
Read my books:
Ruby in Practice (http://manning.com/mcanally/\)
My free Ruby e-book (http://humblelittlerubybook.com/\)
Or, my blogs: