Hi all,
I made a presentation covering the different facets of Ruby :
- the scripting facet
- the dynamic typing facet
- the object-oriented facet
- the functional facet
- the reflective facet
- the DSL facet
Code snippets and comparison with other languages (Java, Python, PHP)
illustrate these facets.
I hope that some of you will find it interesting and/or useful.
Your comments are welcome.
You can find it at http://selfreflexion.free.fr/?p=4
Chauk-Mean.
Chauk-Mean P wrote:
Hi all,
I made a presentation covering the different facets of Ruby :
- the scripting facet
- the dynamic typing facet
- the object-oriented facet
- the functional facet
- the reflective facet
- the DSL facetCode snippets and comparison with other languages (Java, Python, PHP)
illustrate these facets.I hope that some of you will find it interesting and/or useful.
I can't say much about the content (yet), but about the presentation:
Comic Sans (whatever it is called), together with the playful drop-shadows is not very readable. You can see that, when you have Comic + drop-shadow right next to source code examples.
If you ever intend to use this presentation, you'll have your audience concentrating on the slides, rather than on your speech.
What I tell myself when making presentations: "Visual aid, not visual playground".
--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
Rule of Open-Source Programming #37:
Duplicate effort is inevitable. Live with it.
Hi. There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.
Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
that is actually public domain:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
giving people their freedom.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. 
On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
You're absolutely right.
To tell you the whole story, the drop-shadow is much lighter in the
original PowerPoint document.
The problem is that I haven't been able to upload the PDF version of this
file into my WordPress blog.
I try to create another PDF file through OpenOffice and the resulting PDF
file is uploadable into WordPress !!
I have to investigate this strange thing.
The side effect is that drop shadows in OpenOffice are much more darker !
Anyway, I just uploaded a new version.
Thanks for your feedback.
Chauk-Mean.
2007/3/31, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com>:
I can't say much about the content (yet), but about the presentation:
>Comic Sans (whatever it is called), together with the playful
>drop-shadows is not very readable. You can see that, when you have Comic
>+ drop-shadow right next to source code examples.
Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License (http://www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html\) which whilst probably flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:
a. you wrote your stuff;
b. other people can use your stuff;
c. they must credit you for creating it.
Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for the month 
Ellie
Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the 'time'-dependent asymmetries of phase space.
On 31 Mar 2007, at 02:02, Gregory Brown wrote:
On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Hi. There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.
Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
that is actually public domain:Public Domain List | Creative Commons
You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
giving people their freedom.CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed | Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported | Creative Commons
If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness.
I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
benefit of the Ruby community !
Chauk-Mean.
2007/3/31, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com>:
If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
>the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
>public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
>rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness.
Chauk-Mean P wrote:
Anyway, I just uploaded a new version.
Better readable by far! now I don't feel like I need new glasses anymore
The only thing I'd change (or better: create a second version!), would be to substitute Comic with another, less "playful", more "business like" font. Verdana is a good idea, or Calibri (ships with MS Office 2007).
--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/
Rule of Open-Source Programming #37:
Duplicate effort is inevitable. Live with it.
Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're looking for?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2007, at 02:02, Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>
> Hi. There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.
>
> Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
> that is actually public domain:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
>
> You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
> unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
> might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
> which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
> giving people their freedom.
>
> CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed | Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported | Creative Commons
>
> If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
> the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
> public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
> rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness.Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License (http://
Anarchic Ownership License) which whilst probably
flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:a. you wrote your stuff;
b. other people can use your stuff;
c. they must credit you for creating it.Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
the month
Augie De Blieck Jr. wrote:
That's all I have to say about that.
-Augie
Well, for what it's worth, they oughta ban dihydrogen monoxide too.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
Excellent. I'm a fan of public domain -- except for the fact that it's
not necessarily hereditary for derivative works. That's a minor
annoyance, however, as it's not directly offensive like some other
licensing terms I've encountered.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 03:21:54PM +0900, Chauk-Mean P wrote:
2007/3/31, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com>:
>If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
>>the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
>>public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
>>rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness.I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
benefit of the Ruby community
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
Most likely, one would choose the attribution/share-alike, rather than
simply a pure attribution license. The difference is that with a share-
alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
not necessarily the case. The link:
CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed | Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported | Creative Commons
I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
controlling copying and so on. That was part of the reason that I
eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:52:21AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're looking
for?
CC BY 3.0 Deed | Attribution 3.0 Unported | Creative Commons
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
I'm of the opinion that we should ban all prohibitions, personally.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 12:13:52PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Augie De Blieck Jr. wrote:
>http://bancomicsans.com/
>
>That's all I have to say about that.
>
Well, for what it's worth, they oughta ban dihydrogen monoxide too.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
Ruby is fun so I chose to use a funny font :-).
Chauk-Mean.
2007/3/31, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com>:
>Better readable by far! now I don't feel like I need new glasses anymore
>
>The only thing I'd change (or better: create a second version!), would
>be to substitute Comic with another, less "playful", more "business
>like" font. Verdana is a good idea, or Calibri (ships with MS Office
2007).
Now that the licensing issue is cleared and the used font is more readable,
I would appreciate some feedback on the content.
Indeed, I intend to develop some of the described facets of Ruby more deeply
(article form rather than slide form) in the future.
So feel free to comment on this mailing list or directly on the blog page.
Chauk-Mean.
2007/3/31, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>:
>> I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
>> benefit of the Ruby community>Excellent. I'm a fan of public domain -- except for the fact that it's
>not necessarily hereditary for derivative works. That's a minor
>annoyance, however, as it's not directly offensive like some other
>licensing terms I've encountered.
I much prefer my wording
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
On 31 Mar 2007, at 03:52, Gregory Brown wrote:
On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License (http://
Anarchic Ownership License) which whilst probably
flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:a. you wrote your stuff;
b. other people can use your stuff;
c. they must credit you for creating it.Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
the monthStandard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're looking for?
CC BY 3.0 Deed | Attribution 3.0 Unported | Creative Commons
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
>
> Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're looking
> for?
> CC BY 3.0 Deed | Attribution 3.0 Unported | Creative CommonsMost likely, one would choose the attribution/share-alike, rather than
simply a pure attribution license. The difference is that with a share-
alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
not necessarily the case. The link:
CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed | Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported | Creative Commons
If you read up in the thread I already recommended this. I was just
offering an alternative to writing your own license if all you want is
attribution and indemnification.
I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
controlling copying and so on. That was part of the reason that I
eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.
Bad idea for community friendly projects. I don't want to learn your
license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
people will be likely to understand, too.
On 3/30/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:52:21AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
* Chad Perrin, 31.03.2007 05:26:
I'm of the opinion that we should ban all prohibitions,
personally.
This statement is self-contradicting from a purely logical point of
view because a ban of all prohibitions were a prohibition. Epimenides
paradox again. Besides that the laws dealing with capital crimes all
include a prohibition of a certain kind of action (e.g. murder) which
I definitely don't want to see banned. It seems that removing
prohibitions that have shown to be of value is en vogue these days.
For well over 100 years there used to be an overwhelming consent in
the scientific world to not even consider "design" as part of an
explanation of any observation made. Now the creator is back.
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
--
Blog available at http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-schugtjo/blog/
PGP key with id 6CC6574F available at http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
Yours is certainly more amusing -- and easier to grasp. There are a
couple of potential legal ambiguities in there, but nothing ambiguous
in terms of your intentions, as far as I can see.
Note: IANAL (obviously)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 06:42:33PM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
On 31 Mar 2007, at 03:52, Gregory Brown wrote:
>On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
>>Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
>>might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License
>>(http://
>>www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html) which whilst probably
>>flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:
>>
>>a. you wrote your stuff;
>>b. other people can use your stuff;
>>c. they must credit you for creating it.
>>
>>Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
>>doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
>>the month
>
>Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're
>looking for?
>CC BY 3.0 Deed | Attribution 3.0 Unported | Creative CommonsI much prefer my wording
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."
I pretty much try to limit myself to an in-depth look at one research
paper, presentation, et cetera, at a time -- but I may do so as soon as
I'm done reading this half-baked Internet Security Threat Report for the
second half of 2006 that Symantec is peddling as gospel.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:59:21PM +0900, Chauk-Mean P wrote:
2007/3/31, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>:
>
>>> I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
>>> benefit of the Ruby community
>
>>Excellent. I'm a fan of public domain -- except for the fact that it's
>>not necessarily hereditary for derivative works. That's a minor
>>annoyance, however, as it's not directly offensive like some other
>>licensing terms I've encountered.
>
>
Now that the licensing issue is cleared and the used font is more readable,
I would appreciate some feedback on the content.
Indeed, I intend to develop some of the described facets of Ruby more deeply
(article form rather than slide form) in the future.So feel free to comment on this mailing list or directly on the blog page.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham