Hi all
I've come across an online book concerning Ruby for Perl programmers but
I've yet to find any for other languages.
The Pick Axe book is a little to slow and simplistic telling far to many of
the core fundamentals of programming OO in general.
I'd like a book that gives more of a conversion from one language set to
another. Pointing out idioms and syntactic differences.
A programmers Ruby guide/tutorial.
Does anyone know of anything that may help me in this?
All the best
Doug
You may want to give Hal Fulton's, "The Ruby Way," a try. More advanced material and includes chapters on moving to Ruby from Perl and Python.
HTH,
On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Doug Bromley wrote:
Hi all
I've come across an online book concerning Ruby for Perl programmers but
I've yet to find any for other languages.The Pick Axe book is a little to slow and simplistic telling far to many of
the core fundamentals of programming OO in general.I'd like a book that gives more of a conversion from one language set to
another. Pointing out idioms and syntactic differences.A programmers Ruby guide/tutorial.
Does anyone know of anything that may help me in this?
--
Jason Perkins
jperkins@sneer.org
"The key to performance is elegance, not
battalions of special cases."
- Jon Bentley and Doug McIlroy
Doug Bromley wrote:
I'd like a book that gives more of a conversion from one language set to
another. Pointing out idioms and syntactic differences.A programmers Ruby guide/tutorial.
Consider:
http://www.onestepback.org/articles/usingruby/
http://www.waits.net/~swaits/LearnRubyTalk/learnruby.html
Pistos
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Hi all
I've come across an online book concerning Ruby for Perl programmers but
I've yet to find any for other languages.The Pick Axe book is a little to slow and simplistic telling far to many of
the core fundamentals of programming OO in general.I'd like a book that gives more of a conversion from one language set to
another. Pointing out idioms and syntactic differences.A programmers Ruby guide/tutorial.
Does anyone know of anything that may help me in this?
Well, that was the Pickaxe for me, but you've already said you differ on that. ... The reason I say that, is I came from a c++ background (I like to think I'm reasonably capable at it too). While I never felt that c++ gave an especially good way of describing anything much (and I think OO is pretty limited, on the whole), it was still very helpful to read the Pickaxe and find out just how much I'd been missing out on.
On 22 Mar 2006, at 00:22, Doug Bromley wrote:
All the best
Doug
Curious; I found it was a lot less advanced, and gave far more rote stuff I could find anywhere else (using abstract data types to describe trees and stacks, etc). For the most part, I skimmed the chapters and found almost nothing I didn't already know. Ironically, ruby way"; it gave the feel of doing things very conventionally.
But then, the Pickaxe turned up at the same time as Ruby for me, and together, they re-ignited my love of programming, so I probably have an overly positive slant on it.
I wonder - perhaps the gaps in my generally c++ background was well filled by the Pickaxe book, where as yours was well filled with The Ruby Way?
Cheers,
Benjohn
On 22 Mar 2006, at 00:35, Jason Perkins wrote:
On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Doug Bromley wrote:
Hi all
I've come across an online book concerning Ruby for Perl programmers but
I've yet to find any for other languages.The Pick Axe book is a little to slow and simplistic telling far to many of
the core fundamentals of programming OO in general.I'd like a book that gives more of a conversion from one language set to
another. Pointing out idioms and syntactic differences.A programmers Ruby guide/tutorial.
Does anyone know of anything that may help me in this?
You may want to give Hal Fulton's, "The Ruby Way," a try. More advanced material and includes chapters on moving to Ruby from Perl and Python.
from my very limited exposure to Ruby, it didn't at all hint at "the
[...]
} 
Well, that was the Pickaxe for me, but you've already said you
} differ on that. ... The reason I say that, is I came from a c++
} background (I like to think I'm reasonably capable at it too). While
} I never felt that c++ gave an especially good way of describing
} anything much (and I think OO is pretty limited, on the whole), it
} was still very helpful to read the Pickaxe and find out just how much
} I'd been missing out on.
[...]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. C++ has duck typing. (It's in
the templates.) It just happens at compile time instead of run time. This
has some significant advantages, not least of which is that the compiler
can do a lot of static analysis of your code, allowing it to catch errors
in code paths that runtime testing may not exercise.
C++ is good for a different class of problems than Ruby but if you don't
think C++ is especially good for any purpose, or you even think that C++ is
exclusively OO, then you didn't really know C++ that well and you didn't
use it to its full potential.
--Greg
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 06:39:10AM +0900, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. C++ has duck typing. (It's in
the templates.)
It's not Ruby's duck typing that makes me like it (I I agree with your templating point). It's Ruby's libraries, its clean and simple syntax, it's pre-installedness on OS X, the standard profiler, debugger, interactive shell, and documentation system that come out of the box. It's packaging system. I especially like irb - the shell.
It just happens at compile time instead of run time. This
has some significant advantages, not least of which is that the compiler
can do a lot of static analysis of your code, allowing it to catch errors
in code paths that runtime testing may not exercise.C++ is good for a different class of problems than Ruby but if you don't
think C++ is especially good for any purpose, or you even think that C++ is
exclusively OO, then you didn't really know C++ that well and you didn't
use it to its full potential.
I can only say I'm happy to have been spared that which I missed.
On 22 Mar 2006, at 22:29, Gregory Seidman wrote:
C++ has *very bad* and almost unusable "duck-typing". C++ is a
piss-poor object language and a mediocre generics language. The best
thing going for C++ is that it's mostly C underneath.
And I know C++ reasonably well and have been trying to exercise C++ to
what *should* work:
struct ToString
{
ToString()
{
}
template <class T>
std::string operator()(const T::values& v)
{
return T::to_str(v);
}
};
So far as I can tell, it doesn't work. Without something like that
(where, ideally, T could *either* be a real class and we're talking
about typedefs and static member functions inside the class or a
namespace), C++ can't claim that it does "duck typing", even at
compile time.
-austin
On 3/22/06, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+ruby@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 06:39:10AM +0900, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
[...]
}
} differ on that. ... The reason I say that, is I came from a c++
} background (I like to think I'm reasonably capable at it too). While
} I never felt that c++ gave an especially good way of describing
} anything much (and I think OO is pretty limited, on the whole), it
} was still very helpful to read the Pickaxe and find out just how much
} I'd been missing out on.
[...]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. C++ has duck typing. (It's in
the templates.) It just happens at compile time instead of run time. This
has some significant advantages, not least of which is that the compiler
can do a lot of static analysis of your code, allowing it to catch errors
in code paths that runtime testing may not exercise.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
What compiler are you using? I'm pretty sure I've gotten g++ to do acrobatics like this in the past.
On Mar 22, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
And I know C++ reasonably well and have been trying to exercise C++ to
what *should* work:struct ToString
{
ToString()
{
}template <class T>
std::string operator()(const T::values& v)
{
return T::to_str(v);
}
};So far as I can tell, it doesn't work. Without something like that
(where, ideally, T could *either* be a real class and we're talking
about typedefs and static member functions inside the class or a
namespace), C++ can't claim that it does "duck typing", even at
compile time.-austin