Out of curiosity, how do others feel about “suggestive” threads? Do you feel
ruby-talk is the appropriate place for these? And what of more in depth
variations of the same, such as the Underpinnings of Method Wrapping thread,
that Peter and I have going, and other threads of this nature?
T.
T. Onoma wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do others feel about “suggestive” threads? Do you feel
ruby-talk is the appropriate place for these? And what of more in depth
variations of the same, such as the Underpinnings of Method Wrapping thread,
that Peter and I have going, and other threads of this nature?T.
“Suggestive”, meaning “suggesting new features?” I’m still pretty new
to ruby-talk, but it seems like a good enough place to me. I guess the
question I would ask in response is: what do you perceive the purpose of
ruby-talk to be? If it isn’t suggesting new features and ideas, and
discussing ideas, I’m not sure why else I’d subscribe.
–
Jamis Buck
jgb3@email.byu.edu
ruby -h | ruby -e ‘a=;readlines.join.scan(/-(.)[e|Kk(\S*)|le.l(…)e|#!(\S*)/) {|r| a << r.compact.first };puts “\n>#{a.join(%q/ /)}<\n\n”’
T. Onoma wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do others feel about “suggestive” threads? Do you feel
ruby-talk is the appropriate place for these? And what of more in depth
variations of the same, such as the Underpinnings of Method Wrapping thread,
that Peter and I have going, and other threads of this nature?
Just my opinion.
Suggestions are not out of place in -talk, but I like for them
to be kept to a minimum.
The desire to make numerous, frequent, sweeping changes to the
language is the mark of the nuby.
The list is at its best when people are making contributions
instead of spouting off, speculating, or whining (all of which
I’ve done at times).
Useful contributions include:
These make up the “signal” of -talk.
This sort of thing makes up the “noise”:
And yes, I’m guilty of noise, too.
Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio is fairly high. Sometimes
it is fairly low.
It’s better when it’s high.
Again, just my opinion.
Hal
I think, in general, such discussions are good if short. However, I stopped
reading that particular thread several dozens of messages ago. 
Might I suggest that you and Peter work out a concrete proposal from your
discussion?
-austin
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:06:03 +0900, T. Onoma wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do others feel about “suggestive” threads? Do you
feel ruby-talk is the appropriate place for these? And what of more in
depth variations of the same, such as the Underpinnings of Method
Wrapping thread, that Peter and I have going, and other threads of this
nature?
–
austin ziegler * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.12.12
* 00.35.51
Hal Fulton wrote:
This sort of thing makes up the “noise”:
- endless discussion of dead RCRs
- demands for a ++ operator
- endless comparisons to other languages
- whining because Ruby is different from Java/Perl/Python
- requests for language features that would make sense
only to a Martian on LSD- gratuitous references to POLS and duck typing
- personal attacks
- saying things in 5,000 words when 50 would do
- and so on
And yes, I’m guilty of noise, too.
Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio is fairly high. Sometimes
it is fairly low.It’s better when it’s high.
Agreed: we shouldn’t let the attacks get low or the martians get high 
This sort of thing makes up the “noise”:
- endless discussion of dead RCRs
What’s an RCR?
- demands for a ++ operator
I did that once. Sorry.
- endless comparisons to other languages
Positive comparisons okay? Ruby rulez!
- gratuitous references to POLS and duck typing
If I may ask… what do those things mean?
- saying things in 5,000 words when 50 would do
Succinctness is a virtue.
Cheers,
–
Daniel Carrera | “Software is like sex. It’s better when it’s free”.
PhD student. |
Math Dept. UMD | – Linus Torvalds
[snip]
These make up the “signal” of -talk.
This sort of thing makes up the “noise”:
[snip]
How about announcements, are they considered signal? or noise?
Should they go to ruby-talk or
rubynet-announce@lists.rubynet.org ?
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:31:06 +0900, Hal Fulton wrote:
–
Simon Strandgaard
Unless he meant “Christina Aguilera naked 1782”
IMO feature suggestions are interesting in moderation, but they tend to
take over the group every so often. It’s more fun to talk about
ruby-as-it-is.
martin
Jamis Buck jgb3@email.byu.edu wrote:
T. Onoma wrote:
Out of curiosity, how do others feel about “suggestive” threads? Do you feel
ruby-talk is the appropriate place for these? And what of more in depth
variations of the same, such as the Underpinnings of Method Wrapping thread,
that Peter and I have going, and other threads of this nature?“Suggestive”, meaning “suggesting new features?” I’m still pretty new
terminology used in our community
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:52:42 +0900, Daniel Carrera wrote:
This sort of thing makes up the “noise”:
- endless discussion of dead RCRs
What’s an RCR?
- gratuitous references to POLS and duck typing
If I may ask… what do those things mean?
–
Simon Strandgaard
This sort of thing makes up the “noise”:
- endless discussion of dead RCRs
What’s an RCR?
Ruby Change Request.
- demands for a ++ operator
I did that once. Sorry.
Don’t be. Its a common thought, and its noticed lack in Ruby is obviously one
of the first things a Nuby will wonder about. And I certainly wouldn’t expect
a Nuby to know too much about tracking down past suggestions either.
- endless comparisons to other languages
Positive comparisons okay? Ruby rulez!
Yes, yes it does.
- gratuitous references to POLS and duck typing
If I may ask… what do those things mean?
POLS - Principle of Least Surprise. It is a general design principle by which
Matz does his best to apply to the design of Ruby. By extension, Rubyists try
to follow the same principle. Obviously we all have different opinions about
it.
Duck Typing - An much newer notion that a class/object (even a method in a
round about way) has a Type based on the the methods it responds to and not
by the name it is given. This analogy may help:
Class : Duck Type :: kind_of? : repond_to?
Cheers in Return,
T.
On Thursday 11 December 2003 08:52 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hal mentioned RAA and RubyForge announcements. I think they’re an
important part of the signal. So much so, they’re typically labelled
with [ANN] so one doesn’t miss them amongst the noise. I think
announcements of significant updates is welcome as well.
Having a dedicated announcement list is fine in theory, but there’s
just not a real need for it IMO. It doesn’t allow for discussions
based on announcements. If someone doesn’t like reading the rest of
ruby-talk, they can filter. If enough people don’t like it, they can
create a program that filters and publishes announcements through a
separate list. That sort of thing should be automatic and should not
depend on people bothering to post announcements to multiple places.
Gavin
On Friday, December 12, 2003, 8:16:58 AM, Simon wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:31:06 +0900, Hal Fulton wrote:
[snip]These make up the “signal” of -talk.
This sort of thing makes up the “noise”:
[snip]
How about announcements, are they considered signal? or noise?
Should they go to ruby-talk or
rubynet-announce@lists.rubynet.org ?
ehi, IMO the keyword is ‘endles’.
It’s a Good Thing ™ to have some comparison, sometimes. It’s just
ugly when a thread goes on for thousand of messages
il Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:52:42 +0900, Daniel Carrera dcarrera@math.umd.edu ha scritto::
- endless comparisons to other languages
Positive comparisons okay? Ruby rulez!
If I may ask… what do those things mean?
terminology used in our community
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyAbbreviations
He he.
Yes, that’s a lot easier than picking them up from conversation. I don’t
feel so bad because I did know most of them. But a few were new to me;
DRY, IANYM, POLS, RCR, YAGNI, and YWFWA being the most notable ones.
Cheers,
–
Daniel Carrera | “Software is like sex. It’s better when it’s free”.
PhD student. |
Math Dept. UMD | – Linus Torvalds
Don’t spread the confusion anymore!
Please keep in mind that POLS means only “least surprise” to matz.
http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/oscon2003/mgp00043.jpg
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:18:41AM +0900, T. Onoma wrote:
POLS - Principle of Least Surprise. It is a general design principle by which
Matz does his best to apply to the design of Ruby. By extension, Rubyists try
to follow the same principle. Obviously we all have different opinions about
it.
–
_ _
__ __ | | ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
'_ \ /| __/ __| '__ \ / ` | ’ \
) | (| | |__ \ | | | | | (| | | | |
.__/ _,|_|/| || ||_,|| |_|
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
Why use Windows when you can have air conditioning?
Why use Windows, when you can leave through the door?
-- Konrad Blum
That’s not true. That’s only applies to Ruby itself. And not, for instance,
all the programs in the RAA.
As the slide says: “the one in designer’s eye”. It doesn’t say “matz’ eye”.
On Friday 12 December 2003 04:09 pm, Mauricio Fernández wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:18:41AM +0900, T. Onoma wrote:
POLS - Principle of Least Surprise. It is a general design principle by
which Matz does his best to apply to the design of Ruby. By extension,
Rubyists try to follow the same principle. Obviously we all have
different opinions about it.Don’t spread the confusion anymore!
Please keep in mind that POLS means only “least surprise” to matz.
http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/oscon2003/mgp00043.jpg
–
T.
