Hi, I was wondering if there are any new Ruby book based on Ruby 1.8.x ?
Thanks
Hi,
···
In message “Ruby Book” on 04/01/30, “Useko Netsumi” usenets_remote_this@earthlink.net writes:
Hi, I was wondering if there are any new Ruby book based on Ruby 1.8.x ?
No, even in Japanese.
matz.
Useko Netsumi wrote:
Hi, I was wondering if there are any new Ruby book based on Ruby 1.8.x ?
If it weren’t for that whole copyright issue, it would be really cool if
someone could go through the book and make a changed version which at
least notes where something is no longer true, or achieved a better way.
(Even if it didn’t cover all the functionality.)
Hrm…I wonder if there would be any legal trouble with writing up
addendums to each page/section, and hosting them framed separately, with
clear notices that the addenda were NOT part of the original.
Any thoughts on this? If this seems legally not disastrous, I would be
willing to do the initial work of splitting the book up into more
manageable chunks than the currently-long HTML pages, framing them out,
and linking each to a Wiki page on someone’s existing Wiki.
Does this sound feasible?
···
–
(-, /\ / / //
The book that are available now are excellent - easy to follow, have good
tutorials yet technical enough to explain the nuts-and-bolts of Ruby
internals, and fun to read. Perhaps all those author need to do is to update
their book to comply with version 1.8 or 1.9 or perhaps 2.0(Matz, perhaps
your involvement is crucial for the future of Ruby). I’m sure they can
easily find publishers as Ruby is becoming the favorite scripting language.
“Yukihiro Matsumoto” matz@ruby-lang.org wrote in message
news:1075461981.825317.18522.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp…
···
Hi,
In message “Ruby Book” > on 04/01/30, “Useko Netsumi” usenets_remote_this@earthlink.net writes:
Hi, I was wondering if there are any new Ruby book based on Ruby 1.8.x ?
No, even in Japanese.
matz.
Gavin Kistner wrote:
Hrm…I wonder if there would be any legal trouble with writing up
addendums to each page/section, and hosting them framed separately, with
clear notices that the addenda were NOT part of the original.
[…]
Does this sound feasible?
I have prelimnary approval of Dave Thomas (one of the authors, not the
now-dead Wendy’s founder) to go ahead on this 
Look for a call to arms soonish to help populate changes.
···
–
(-, /\ / / //
Gavin Kistner wrote:
Does this sound feasible?
See:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ProgrammingRubyTwo
and:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ChangesToProgrammingRuby
Hope this helps,
Lyle