Hal Fulton wrote:
But as an old-time Unix hacker, I prefer short names. Two letters is
best, but my usual threshold is around five.That’s one reason I like “lin” (on Lunar Linux) better than apt-get or
whatever. Though I will probably end up running Fedora instead…
On the ruby-doc list, while discussing a possiboe extension of ri, we
first refered to it as ‘ri.next’, then shortened it to ‘rj’.
James
Hal
After taking a pretty good look, I am going to state why I will not
switch to Ruby for my scripting/programming tasks (at least not yet!).
- Good documentation
- Good documentation reader
- Repository of mature modules
- Repository that can be access from the command line and execute
various actions (search, install, etc…)- Unit testing built into a standard build/install process.
- A standard way to package up a module with docs/code/tests include
- The ability to overload constructors.
Besides that, I am enjoying using the language while going through the
book referenced above.Cheers,
JFI don’t know. Those seem like good reasons to switch. Look at it as an
oppotunity to provide something nice for the community. That’s how perl
got to the place it is now, and it’s the only way ruby will achieve the
same.Regards,
Randy.
Hey Randy,
Interesting perspective… assist in creating the items I wish
to have, instead of listing them on the mailing list. I will consider
your advice, I have yet to “join” and open source project and really
contribute. Perhaps it is time.
Cheers,
JF
You might want to scan
http://pragprog.com/pragdave/Practices/ConstructionMethods.rdoc,v
for my take on this.
Cheers
Dave
On Dec 18, 2003, at 14:25, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:11:55 +0900, Jim Frapper wrote:
- The ability to overload constructors.
YAGNI. There is no method overloading at all in Ruby at this point –
because Ruby isn’t restricted by static typing, and in my experience,
it’s
not necessary. See my port of MIME::Types or Text::Format for how
multiple
constructor forms can be provided in the singular mechanism – and
it’s not
even necessarily the preferred way in Ruby.
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Now, why do we have to pick a creative name? Why don’t we pick a boring
uncreative name that is easy to remember, like “rubydoc”.
I care much less about the name than the software functionality and
the content it exposes.But as an old-time Unix hacker, I prefer short names. Two letters is
best, but my usual threshold is around five.That’s one reason I like “lin” (on Lunar Linux) better than apt-get or
whatever. Though I will probably end up running Fedora instead…I hear you. Names with dashes are the worst (“apt-get”). My fingers
have to physically pause for a second to type a dash.Oh, wait… how about “rdoc”?
That would rock. The name of the program could be the same as the name
of the documentation system, and at the same time be a sensible name.If you like the name “rdoc” raise your hand.
I think I might sort of like that, except that
Hal
I have no idea why my fingers mixed a “u” and an “o”.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:49:38AM +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:46:02AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:41:42 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Now, why do we have to pick a creative name? Why don’t we pick a boring
uncreative name that is easy to remember, like “rubydoc”.One beef I have with many OSS products is that they like choosing
creative but uninformative names like “Evolution”, or “Gimp”.GIMP isn’t “uninformative.” It’s the GNU Image Manipulation Program.
It’s unly informative if you already know that. Like GNU or PINE.
–
Daniel Carrera | “Software is like sex. It’s better when it’s free”.
PhD student. |
Math Dept. UMD | – Linus Torvalds
Hi –
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Oh, wait… how about “rdoc”?
That would rock. The name of the program could be the same as the name
of the documentation system, and at the same time be a sensible name.If you like the name “rdoc” raise your hand.
wobblini:~$ which rdoc
/usr/local/bin/rdoc
David
–
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
But RubyForge has no such appetite for short names, so it’s known as
‘rjay’ there 
Gavin
On Friday, December 19, 2003, 12:00:08 AM, jbritt wrote:
Hal Fulton wrote:
But as an old-time Unix hacker, I prefer short names. Two letters is
best, but my usual threshold is around five.That’s one reason I like “lin” (on Lunar Linux) better than apt-get or
whatever. Though I will probably end up running Fedora instead…
On the ruby-doc list, while discussing a possiboe extension of ri, we
first refered to it as ‘ri.next’, then shortened it to ‘rj’.
This is precisely what I was talking about. I just did something
where I had a generic #initialize, but the object was being
initialized from a CSV file, so I created a Foo::from_csv_file to
create it.
-austin
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:41:15 +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
On Dec 18, 2003, at 14:25, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:11:55 +0900, Jim Frapper wrote:
- The ability to overload constructors.
YAGNI. There is no method overloading at all in Ruby at this
point – because Ruby isn’t restricted by static typing, and in
my experience, it’s not necessary. See my port of MIME::Types or
Text::Format for how multiple constructor forms can be provided
in the singular mechanism – and it’s not even necessarily the
preferred way in Ruby.
You might want to scan
http://pragprog.com/pragdave/Practices/ConstructionMethods.rdoc,v
for my take on this.
–
austin ziegler * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.12.19
* 11.40.08
Oh, wait… how about “rdoc”?
I think I might sort of like that, except that
- Dave Thomas might not (probably would not) like it (See
reasons 2 and 3)- It might cause confusion
- “rdoc” is already a program name (processor for
rdoc-enabled Ruby code)
I didn’t know that ‘rdoc’ was already the name of a program. I tested
‘rdoc’ on my computer and I didn’t get anything. Am I supposed to have
rdoc? Why don’t I have it?
If rdoc is supposed to come with the standard ruby distribution, then
maybe Dave will want to extend rdoc for the purposes described above…
Dave?
Cheers,
–
Daniel Carrera | “Software is like sex. It’s better when it’s free”.
PhD student. |
Math Dept. UMD | – Linus Torvalds
Hi!
It’s unly informative if you already know that. Like GNU or PINE.
- unly
- only
I have no idea why my fingers mixed a “u” and an “o”.
Freudian:
only + ugly → unly
That reminds me of a running gag:
»Hotline, what’s your problem?«
»I did start ‘six’ and now cannot escape from it.«
»‘six’?«
»Yes, that editor.«
»Hmm, what do you see on the screen?«
»Nothing except some strange wavy lines on the left.«
»Wavy lines?«
»Yes, like those used for spanish nasal ‘n’.«
»Oh, I see. Hit ‘Esc’ several times.«
»OMG. I broke something, my computer beeps.«
»Calm down. That was just the expected feedback. Now hit uppercase Z
two times.«
»Oh, great. I am no longer trapped. Thank you. Could you explain what
did happen?«
»Yes. But it is cheaper for you to read the man page for lowercase
roman six.«
What does this have to do with the uninformative names?
lowercase roman six reads ‘vi’.
For those who don’t know the background of that name: The original
Unix editor was ‘ed’ (it is still available on many Unix systems
and GNU/Linux). Then came an extended ed called ‘ex’. To enter it’s
fullscreen mode you could enter ‘visual’ or start it with the name
‘vi’. If you accidentally switch vi into ex (line) mode - e.g. by
hitting uppercase Q - you can escape from it entering ‘visual’. The
shortest acceptable for ‘visual’ is - guess what? Yes, ‘vi’.
Josef ‘Jupp’ SCHUGT
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:49:38AM +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
–
http://oss.erdfunkstelle.de/ruby/ - German comp.lang.ruby-FAQ
http://rubyforge.org/users/jupp/ - Ruby projects at Rubyforge
...................................
Windows are best when they are “unseen” – Chet Noll 27 Oct 2000
RDoc is part of the standard distro now (after 1.8.0, in time for
1.8.1). And Dave is enhancing it to become a more complete package.
Gavin
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 7:45:15 AM, Daniel wrote:
Oh, wait… how about “rdoc”?
I think I might sort of like that, except that
- Dave Thomas might not (probably would not) like it (See
reasons 2 and 3)- It might cause confusion
- “rdoc” is already a program name (processor for
rdoc-enabled Ruby code)
I didn’t know that ‘rdoc’ was already the name of a program. I tested
‘rdoc’ on my computer and I didn’t get anything. Am I supposed to have
rdoc? Why don’t I have it?
If rdoc is supposed to come with the standard ruby distribution, then
maybe Dave will want to extend rdoc for the purposes described above…