I've create a simple screen scraper which sends a message to a Jabber
client for notification. The scraper portion works as does the Jabber
portion but I'm having trouble passing the data from the scraper to the
Jabber client.
Here's what gets all the data in the scraper portion
link.search("//font[@class='hosts']").each do |host|
I've create a simple screen scraper which sends a message to a Jabber
client for notification. The scraper portion works as does the Jabber
portion but I'm having trouble passing the data from the scraper to the
Jabber client.
Here's what gets all the data in the scraper portion
link.search("//font[@class='hosts']").each do |host|
body = link.search("//font[@class='hosts']").map do |host|
host.to_html.match(/[a-z]+[0-9]*\.(foo|bar)\.[a-z]+/)
end.to_yaml
···
On 5/8/07, Seth .. <seth@animejunkie.org> wrote:
Hello,
I've create a simple screen scraper which sends a message to a Jabber
client for notification. The scraper portion works as does the Jabber
portion but I'm having trouble passing the data from the scraper to the
Jabber client.
Here's what gets all the data in the scraper portion
link.search("//font[@class='hosts']").each do |host|
I have recently joined this group to see what things are being discussed Ruby. And I have to say that there is a lot of interesting information shared in this group!
I come from a Java environment (have been coding in Java for the past 11 years) and I must admit that I was amazed by Ruby when I stumbled onto it not long ago.
One of my hobbies has always been the study of design patterns, refactoring, etc... And in general the way we can improve code to make it more maintainable, etc.
A sentence comes into my mind on this:
Any fool can write code that a computer understands, it takes a good developer to write code that a human being understands
I think it was Kent Beck who said this... Not sure though.
Anyway, Ruby, as far as I can tell really adapts to this words pretty well and I consider it a fantastic OO language.
Being so I just set up a web site http://www.rubypatterns.org where I hope we can all share pattern knowledge in Ruby. It is a wiki and be warned, there is no content at all there yet. Just a blank page to be edited by anyone so that we can start a pattern catalogue for all the Ruby developers out there...
On May 8, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen wrote:
Being so I just set up a web site http://www.rubypatterns.org where I hope we can all share pattern knowledge in Ruby. It is a wiki and be warned, there is no content at all there yet. Just a blank page to be edited by anyone so that we can start a pattern catalogue for all the Ruby developers out there...
Be warned that several Javarish design patterns become practically
null ops in Ruby because...
* Everything in Ruby, including and especially Classes are objects.
* Everything in Ruby is open for extension at compile time.
* The Ruby module / class structure is hackable at run time.
Thus, especially the construction patterns from the GoF practically
vanish into the background of ruby just doing what ruby does.
So don't be disappointed when some of your Design Pattern translation
efforts seem to give trivial results, that should be make you say Wow!
Ruby is powerful!
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
···
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen wrote:
I come from a Java environment (have been coding in Java for the past 11 years) and I must admit that I was amazed by Ruby when I stumbled onto it not long ago.
One of my hobbies has always been the study of design patterns, refactoring, etc... And in general the way we can improve code to make it more maintainable, etc.
Any fool can write code that a computer understands, it takes a good
developer to write code that a human being understands
I think it was Kent Beck who said this... Not sure though.
That was Martin Fowler in "Refactoring."
I just want to echo the sentiment that design patterns are less useful
in Ruby than in Java or C. However, I'm not totally sure about that.
It's definitely a popular view, and definitely true in some cases, but
I'd stop short of dismissing the entire book. Some of the Gang of Four
examples are in Smalltalk, not C, and some Smalltalkers say they
consider Ruby to be a Unix dialect of Smalltalk. Some design patterns
break down into about a line and a half of Ruby, Decorator I think
being a good example, but really you should view "Design Patterns" as
a set of tools whose usefulness varies by language. I think the
Flyweight pattern is probably useful in any language, it seems more a
sanity preservation device than anything else. Could be wrong though.
Enrique
I just left my footprints on your Wiki, but I did not understand
"pattern" in the strict sense of "Design Patterns".
I strongly believe that Design Patterns are not related to specific languages.
[That does not mean at all that it is not interesting to see how you
implement them best in Ruby, just that I did not interpret your idea
as such]
Cheers
Robert
···
On 5/8/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen wrote:
> Being so I just set up a web site http://www.rubypatterns.org where
> I hope we can all share pattern knowledge in Ruby. It is a wiki and
> be warned, there is no content at all there yet. Just a blank page
> to be edited by anyone so that we can start a pattern catalogue for
> all the Ruby developers out there...
On 8 May 2007, at 14:04, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen wrote:
Being so I just set up a web site http://www.rubypatterns.org where I hope we can all share pattern knowledge in Ruby. It is a wiki and be warned, there is no content at all there yet. Just a blank page to be edited by anyone so that we can start a pattern catalogue for all the Ruby developers out there...
Another take on Ruby Patterns - you might be better off looking for
Ruby **idioms**. Programming Java and programming Ruby can be very
different experiences, and it's always good to approach a new topic
with the mind of a beginner. Techniques that would be impossible or
insane in Java are sometimes the best way to do something in Ruby.
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
···
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Giles Bowkett wrote:
I think the Flyweight pattern is probably useful in any language, it
seems more a sanity preservation device than anything else. Could be
wrong though.
Actually I am not only trying to translate the GoF patterns into Ruby, there are zillions of different patterns...
"Each pattern is a three-part rule, which expresses a relation between a certain context, a problem, and a solution." as Christopher Alexander says.
And I don't believe that this cases don't apply for Ruby, they just do it in a different way. If you take the creational patterns in GoF they might be differences in the implementation, but the problems still exists...
I will not be disappointed Ruby is powerful! But with any language in the world you can use it wrong and lose most of it's power...
Cheers,
Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
···
On 9 May 2007, at 00:27, John Carter wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen wrote:
I come from a Java environment (have been coding in Java for the past 11 years) and I must admit that I was amazed by Ruby when I stumbled onto it not long ago.
One of my hobbies has always been the study of design patterns, refactoring, etc... And in general the way we can improve code to make it more maintainable, etc.
Be warned that several Javarish design patterns become practically
null ops in Ruby because...
* Everything in Ruby, including and especially Classes are objects.
* Everything in Ruby is open for extension at compile time.
* The Ruby module / class structure is hackable at run time.
Thus, especially the construction patterns from the GoF practically
vanish into the background of ruby just doing what ruby does.
So don't be disappointed when some of your Design Pattern translation
efforts seem to give trivial results, that should be make you say Wow!
Ruby is powerful!
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
you are absolutely right with the statement that a design pattern is language independent, still the way to implement a specific design pattern differs from language to language...
Take the Observer for example. In Java for instance no one would think to implement this pattern from scratch (unless there is a very specific need not covered by the language) as it is available in the language (aka Observer and Observable).
I do strongly believe that we would profit in general by a body of knowledge in Ruby Patterns as there might be even patterns that only apply to Ruby development... and for those patterns that are commonly known (Visitor, Strategy, Factory Method, etc) we still can build some advice for other novice developers that need advice...
Thanks a lot for your input!
Cheers,
Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
···
On 8 May 2007, at 14:23, Robert Dober wrote:
On 5/8/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen wrote:
> Being so I just set up a web site http://www.rubypatterns.org where
> I hope we can all share pattern knowledge in Ruby. It is a wiki and
> be warned, there is no content at all there yet. Just a blank page
> to be edited by anyone so that we can start a pattern catalogue for
> all the Ruby developers out there...
Enrique
I just left my footprints on your Wiki, but I did not understand
"pattern" in the strict sense of "Design Patterns".
I strongly believe that Design Patterns are not related to specific languages.
[That does not mean at all that it is not interesting to see how you
implement them best in Ruby, just that I did not interpret your idea
as such]
Cheers
Robert
--
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw
Completely agree with you, still patterns solve a problem in a given context and obviously (if we are talking about developing software) in different languages. I don't believe this problems don't exist just because the language is called Ruby or Java or any other name...
The main idea is to capture the essence of the language and to see which patterns apply in with way in the language. I posted an implementation of the Factory Method yesterday in the pattern catalogue and I made it (on purpose and maybe a bit of lack in Ruby experience) as it is described in the book. I am sure there is a Ruby way to do exactly that in a nicer, more elegant way, but exactly that is what I want to achieve. I would love that people can see the AHA, WOW. In the book (or other languages) this seemed so difficult and in Ruby I can do this in a bliss...
Cheers,
Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
···
On 9 May 2007, at 04:21, Giles Bowkett wrote:
Another take on Ruby Patterns - you might be better off looking for
Ruby **idioms**. Programming Java and programming Ruby can be very
different experiences, and it's always good to approach a new topic
with the mind of a beginner. Techniques that would be impossible or
insane in Java are sometimes the best way to do something in Ruby.
you are absolutely right with the statement that a design pattern is
language independent, still the way to implement a specific design
pattern differs from language to language...
Take the Observer for example. In Java for instance no one would
think to implement this pattern from scratch (unless there is a very
specific need not covered by the language) as it is available in the
language (aka Observer and Observable).
I do strongly believe that we would profit in general by a body of
knowledge in Ruby Patterns as there might be even patterns that only
apply to Ruby development... and for those patterns that are commonly
known (Visitor, Strategy, Factory Method, etc) we still can build
some advice for other novice developers that need advice...
Thanks a lot for your input!
Cheers,
Sure I did not say the contrary, go ahead and delete my entry about
blocks or I can do it myself if you are busy.
Cheers
Robert
···
On 5/8/07, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen <ecomba@mac.com> wrote:
Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
--
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw
Completely agree with you, still patterns solve a problem in a given
context and obviously (if we are talking about developing software)
in different languages. I don't believe this problems don't exist
just because the language is called Ruby or Java or any other name...
The main idea is to capture the essence of the language and to see
which patterns apply in with way in the language. I posted an
implementation of the Factory Method yesterday in the pattern
catalogue and I made it (on purpose and maybe a bit of lack in Ruby
experience) as it is described in the book. I am sure there is a
Ruby way to do exactly that in a nicer, more elegant way, but exactly
that is what I want to achieve. I would love that people can see the
AHA, WOW. In the book (or other languages) this seemed so difficult
and in Ruby I can do this in a bliss...
Cheers,
Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
> Another take on Ruby Patterns - you might be better off looking for
> Ruby **idioms**. Programming Java and programming Ruby can be very
> different experiences, and it's always good to approach a new topic
> with the mind of a beginner. Techniques that would be impossible or
> insane in Java are sometimes the best way to do something in Ruby.
Q: What's wrong with top-posting?
Q: What's the biggest scourge on plain text email discussions?
Just a friendly tip
···
On 5/9/07, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen <ecomba@mac.com> wrote:
On 9 May 2007, at 04:21, Giles Bowkett wrote:
A: It reverses the normal flow of conversation.
A: Top-posting.
