Slashdot Mirror

Like it or hate it, Ruby is not a 'Perl derivative.'

Like it or leave it, you don't know what you're talking about.

From the official ruby faq:

"Ruby is a modern object-oriented language, combining elements of Perl, Smalltalk, and Scheme

Influenced by Perl, Matz wanted to use a jewel name for his new language, so he named Ruby after a colleague's birthstone. Later, he realized that Ruby comes right after Perl in several situations. In birthstones, pearl is June, ruby is July. When measuring font sizes, pearl is 5pt, ruby is 5.5pt. He thought Ruby was a good name for a programming language newer (and hopefully better) than Perl.

Ruby's syntax and design philosophy are heavily influenced by Perl.... Many, many things are lifted directly from Perl."

The creator of Ruby (the language) was named as an honour to Perl, which Ruby borrows some (but not all) ideas from.

Source: http://ruby-doc.org/docs/ruby-...

Ruby was in a way an attempt to do Python, but more "OO clean" [0].

In light of Python's state at the time it might have made sense (I would not know since it was a decade or so before I touched Python), but today the differences seem really petty and superficial (like using a object.length method directly in Ruby instead of the function call len(object) in Python, which in fact looks at the implementation of the __len__ method of the object). I see no real redeeming quality in Ruby that is not present in Python, except for when a certain library exists for one but not the other.

[0]: The Ruby Language FAQ (see section 1.4)

Wrong, nearly 100% of the core library is C(String, array, hash, numerics, etc). Go to the docs. You can toggle the source code. Compile Ruby from source and watch the output.

A significant amount of the standard library is also C.

For example, the source for the method
VALUE rb_ary_push(VALUE ary, VALUE item)
{
        long idx = RARRAY_LEN(ary);

        ary_ensure_room_for_push(ary, 1);
        RARRAY_ASET(ary, idx, item);
        ARY_SET_LEN(ary, idx + 1);
        return ary;
}

That is C, not Ruby.

So once again, the Core Ruby libraries are all written in C. Always have been, always will be.

I can't speak to upgrading; I've been using ruby 1.9 the entire time. But, you are wrong, IMO, about documentation. First things I looked up in a modern scripting language, the data structures, and os interactions, were awesome. Take a look at these, and then, you can even click on them to see their c header!

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/String.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Hash.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Array.html

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Dir.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/File.html

I can't speak to upgrading; I've been using ruby 1.9 the entire time. But, you are wrong, IMO, about documentation. First things I looked up in a modern scripting language, the data structures, and os interactions, were awesome. Take a look at these, and then, you can even click on them to see their c header!

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/String.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Hash.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Array.html

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Dir.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/File.html

I can't speak to upgrading; I've been using ruby 1.9 the entire time. But, you are wrong, IMO, about documentation. First things I looked up in a modern scripting language, the data structures, and os interactions, were awesome. Take a look at these, and then, you can even click on them to see their c header!

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/String.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Hash.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Array.html

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Dir.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/File.html

I can't speak to upgrading; I've been using ruby 1.9 the entire time. But, you are wrong, IMO, about documentation. First things I looked up in a modern scripting language, the data structures, and os interactions, were awesome. Take a look at these, and then, you can even click on them to see their c header!

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/String.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Hash.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Array.html

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Dir.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/File.html

I can't speak to upgrading; I've been using ruby 1.9 the entire time. But, you are wrong, IMO, about documentation. First things I looked up in a modern scripting language, the data structures, and os interactions, were awesome. Take a look at these, and then, you can even click on them to see their c header!

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/String.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Hash.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Array.html

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/Dir.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/File.html

Have him learn Ruby. On any OS.
With this book: http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/

I'm not the guy who was (presumably) hiring, but let me comment nonetheless.

1) String replacement. No need to get overcomplicated - use String#sub.

2) Update an array. Your assignment to "num" there is meaningless. For one thing, you're assigning to a local (lambda argument) which is going to be immediately discarded afterwards. For another, if you're trying to mutate the array in-place, then you should be using Array#map!, not Array#map. And if you're trying to make a new array with values, then you do not need the assignment at all.

Now, I'm not familiar with Python but I'd say you're trolling. Then again, your complete post is content-free except for some handwaving about "deep knowledge" and "cursory familiarity".

Take a look at Python's simple print statement and tell me with a straight face that it's an OO method instead of a parser feature. Contrast this with Ruby's Kernel#print statement, which is treated as a simple member function call instead of a language construct.

The fact that method calls (assert, print and del) are included in the language syntax, means that Python is not (yet) fully OO.

Here's my take, having used both languages in anger. First off, let me call out a number of similarities between these languages. They're both OO, dynamic, and provide reflection capabilities (useful for meta-programming). They've both been influenced by functional languages. They both have active, vibrant user communities. Both have many open-source and shipping commercial applications that leverage or are fully built on these languages. While there are notable syntactic differences, I find that there's a certain shared "feel" between Python and Ruby.

Now I'll call out the differences I find interesting. Python's import model (akin to #include for you C folk) is stronger than Ruby's require when it comes to larger applications. By "stronger", I mean that it's more explicit and therefore provides greater assurance against unintended effects from referencing a different module/class/object than you intended. This is a two-edged sword, since Ruby's code loading approach is less verbose and affords the construction of tools like Rails' Dependencies module which automatically finds code via a convention-over-configuration model. (e.g. calling require is never needed for the main application code of a Rails application if you just follow the file vs. class naming conventions -- this is *very* handy, IMO.)

I'm big on powerful abstractions in programming languages. On this count, I find that Ruby wins hands down. The Python community has had a muddled approach to some key areas that Ruby had early clarity on via lessons learned from Smalltalk. Specifically, Ruby blocks are a single great primitive that covers the ground of a number of separate, less powerful entities in Python. Blocks are nothing more or less than anonymous functions, aka "lambdas", but their beauty lies in their syntatic integration. Consider the Ruby iterator pattern:
a = [3,4,5]
a.each do |x|
puts x
end

The do ... end construct is a block. a is a Ruby Array object. The conventional iterator method each calls the block once for every element in order, as you'd expect. The neat thing here is that it's easy and natural to implement your own custom version of each for your classes. By defining this one method, and including the mixin module Enumerable on your class, you get definitions for a bunch of other useful standard collection methods such as map, find, select/reject and so on.

Now, Python provides for the special __iter__ method to allow user-defined classes to support iteration. But Ruby's block-based mechanism is fully general and available to the Ruby programmer. Blocks' utility goes beyond iteration, into a wide variety of other cases where anonymous functions are useful. Some motivating examples may be helpful. Another one from Ruby's standard library:
File.open('foo.txt','w') do |f|
f.write(some_content)
end
This illustrates the Ruby idiom for resource cleanup. Here we're guaranteed that the file will be closed after the block runs. The implementation of open isn't magic, it can be expressed (**simplified slightly) as:

class File
def File.open(name,mode)
file = File.new(name,mode)
if block_given?
begin
yield
ensure
file.close
end
else
return file
end
end
end

And the list of uses goes on and on. Blocks are a foundation component that makes Ruby well-suited for writi

The official site is always a good bet. But I also make it a habit to memorize the url to the rdoc of whatever I'm doing:

ruby-doc.org/core
api.rubyonrails.org

Beyond that, it's more about the framework. For example:

ramaze.net
sequel.rubyforge.org

Beyond that, there's the source (and IRB + tab-completion), and for the really tough questions, the ruby-talk mailing list.

Can't really recommend the jQuery docs, as they're down half the time, the UI is lacking some critical features, and it doesn't seem to quite work in Konqueror. For a library claiming to be cross-browser, you should at least have your docs be cross-browser!

C#/.NET - http://msdn.microsoft.com/
Haskell - http://haskell.org/
Nemerle - http://nemerle.org/
OCaml - http://caml.inria.fr/
PHP - http://php.net/
Python - http://python.org/
Ruby - http://ruby-doc.org/ (API docs), http://ruby-lang.org/ (for more links and info)
SML - http://smlnj.org/ (the most popular implementation), http://standardml.org/Basis/ (standard library)

(X)HTML/CSS/DOM/XSL/etc. - http://w3.org/

Hm. Now that I've written it down, I see most of these are obvious, but then it makes sense, that the "official" sites tend to be the best reference.

http://ruby-doc.org/

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/

In case no one's posted them yet:

Ruby home page, for starters.
RubyDoc, especially the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide with some excellent examples for those getting started.
Why's Poignant Guide, an offbeat way to get started.

In case no one's posted them yet:

Ruby home page, for starters.
RubyDoc, especially the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide with some excellent examples for those getting started.
Why's Poignant Guide, an offbeat way to get started.

Good advice. Mod parent up. From a technology perspective, a Version Control System, Test Driven Development, and Continuous Integration can go a long way towards improving quality. If the OP is in a MSFT shop, then you are most probably stuck with VSS or TFS. VSS is file based so it is not very good for distributed development. You will need to enhance VSS with SoS if you have remote developers. TFS doesn't have that problem and also has support for TDD's unit testing. If the OP is willing to use OSS, then there are plenty of good options available. There is plenty of good advice here as to OSS VCS. There are various unit testing frameworks for Java, .NET, Ruby, PHP, C++, you name it. Also, check out Cruise Control for Continuous Integration.

Technology alone cannot solve quality issues, however. Changes in methodology, process, and even corporate culture may also be needed. Take a look at my site for more advice on that.

Insightful? Why would you have to troll thru thousands of lines of source code just to find a public method? Ever tried google? There's great Ruby/Rails API documentation out there ...

If you google something like 'Ruby String' you get the normal documentation, often on ruby-doc.org ( http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/String.html )

If you google something like 'Rails Activerecord' you get the normal documentation, often on api.rubyonrails.com ( http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html )

You can browse API sites or you can just look at the same HTML documentation that's generated on your local PC when you install Ruby/Rails or any RubyGems. You don't need internet connectivity.

I don't know why people think that screencasts like those on Peepcode have *anything* to do with documentation because they don't. You can watch screencasts for learning C#/Java/etc too. It's not something that's unique to Ruby or Rails, it just so happens that there are some very nice Ruby/Rails screencasts (notable via Peepcode and Railscasts). Java has books - so does Ruby. Hibernate has books - so does Rails. They all have local and online documentation.

That said, I read the source code for Ruby apps to find the answers to my questions quite often. Ruby is very expressive so much of the code reads like documentation ... if I want to see what is done with a variable I pass in, NO language's documentation could help that ... you'll ALWAYS need to read the source code.

I'm baffled by why people think of Ruby/Rails screencasts negatively ... I've never heard people bash Lynda.com before ... what's wrong with people wanting to supplement the learning tools out there? Seriously. There's a lot of Ruby/Rails documentation ... I've been using Ruby for 3+ years and Rails for 2+ and I can't remember ever having trouble finding documentation (and I came to Ruby/Rails from .NET & Java).

I'm sorry if you're using some old legacy Ruby library and the developers didn't provide any documentation but you can't generalize that to the whole of the Ruby and/or Rails communities. It's simply wrong. There's lots of great documentation out there.

I can be sure that I own my homework solutions and essays even though they are "derived" from my notes.

Depends what you're talking about, but in the general case, I'm not sure I agree.

I frequently read documentation for the tools I use, particularly the languages. Should my programs be considered derivative works of ruby-doc.org?

Of course, it also begs the question of whether the documentation is itself derivative of the tools...

I'd say it depends entirely on whether it's a full-on derivative work, or merely something which relies on, borrows from, quotes, etc. Unfortunately, I don't know of a clear definition there, and I'm not sure there is one, legally.

Thanks for the examples.

I like your examples, yet
the do the very thing I no longer have to do with Ruby.

And that is.
Call c like operators like for, while etc.

I create objects and use the operators that the object provides.

So instead of calling for upper range lower range inside some list....bla bla bla.
(I have done Perl for many years now)

I just call the inherited operator ..

each

which is part of the Ruby Array Class ...check it out,

http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/Array.html

it shows you the smogarboard of operators you automatically
inherit (more than 50) the moment you type something as simple as

myList = []

In Ruby EVERYTHING is an object.

Even the number 10 is an object.

So you can still do good'ol a-la c-style loops in Ruby, but
you shouldn't.

So I still want to learn Python, but mostly to understand it, not
for my every day scripting.

Cheers.

I'm especially surprised because the creator is Japanese and Ruby apparently has a big following there.

I would have thought that multi-byte languages would have been a big deal from the start.

Ruby has a lot of work in the library department, and a HELL of a lot of work in the documentation department.

• Smalltalk - The original OO language and programming environment
• • The Smalltalk Portal
  • For a bit Free of fun and games
  • Gratis Very Fast - Recommended
  • Gratis non-commercial version of the top-shelf product
  • The online Smalltalk library - gratis
• Ruby - OO in a sane file oriented environment
• • The Ruby Portal
  • Buy the best of the books. Only $25 for a pdf download.
  • The gratis first edition as a WWW site
• SQL - You'll need to store your data somehow
• • PostgreSQL - The Free Relational Database off the top-shelf
  • MySQL - The fast, and most popular, one for Web use
  • Gratis book - PostgreSQL Introduction and Concepts as a WWW site
• C and C++ - Get these downloadable books FAQ & Tutorial.
• • The New C Standard - A huge well written book
  • comp.lang.c FAQ'
  • My own modest contribution

the Ruby doc site http://www.ruby-doc.org/

and yes go for the chunky bacon http://poignantguide.net/ruby/

Try Ruby-Doc. Here is the core, and the standard library. Or use ri at the command line.

Try Ruby-Doc. Here is the core, and the standard library. Or use ri at the command line.

Try Ruby-Doc. Here is the core, and the standard library. Or use ri at the command line.

I'm not that familiar with python, but the split command sure looks like ruby to me http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/String.html#M 001405

First, by "much nicer syntax" you must mean "with a syntax that I'm already used to." (OTOH, I spend all day programming Scheme, so you probably think I'm a loony anyway when it comes to syntax.)

Anyway, yeah. The Python language is going to be revised to add yet another special-purpose feature and syntax to do yet another specific thing that any language with closures can do trivially with a higher-order function, without any revisions to the language.

And then it's going to take a while for the revisions to be available in all of the implementations of Python, and for third-party libraries to catch up with the language and implement APIs that use this feature. Sure. Sounds great.

Same story with list comprehensions, generators and generator expressions. Ruby, Scheme, and other such languages don't have any of those. Instead, they've had anonymous lexical closures since the start. For example, Python required a new language version to implement generators; in Ruby, the same functionality was implemented as a standard library, and to boot, it was implemented in Ruby itself.

As to the "too much to remember" I'd answer, "No. Not really.". It's neat that a lot of the one-off stuff is there but you don't really need to commit it to memory.

The problem is, a good portion of people who loudly support Perl cite these kinds shortcuts as reasons they can write code quickly (and with as few characters as possible). If that's the case, then they probably use them. If I have to deal with their code, then I'm going to have to remember this stuff, or go look it up. Not every programmer has the luxury of not working with others.

And that was just correcting a newbish misunderstanding about the language -- if you know of a language where new programmers don't make any mistakes or misunderstand anything I'd love to learn it.

I'm starting to sound like a bit of an evangelist, but of any language I've seen, Ruby is the closest to what you've asked for. The behavior is very consistent. After a few chapters of the "Pickaxe" book (available online here - http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/), you should be up and running.

I'll admit - I'm no Perl guru. I could make better arguments if I were. Because of my interest in languages, I'll get to it one of these days. I'm definately subject to some of the newbish misunderstandings. However, if I'm really going to learn a language, it's either needed (I learned Java for a course in distributed systems), or I'm excited about the features and design of the language.

For sharp contrast look at how C++ handles OO behaviors.

C++ is not the pinacle of OO design, it's just the one everyone knows. Like Perl (although, as you state, with a different approach) it has been added to a language which was not inherently object based.

Contrast this with Smalltalk, Eiffel, or Ruby, and you might understand why I don't like it.

Well, if you were trying to piss someone off I think you failed miserably. You made well reasoned arguments and presented them without being inflammatory. I happen to disagree with you but that's not enough to piss me off.

No, I wasn't trying. I actually enjoy having serious, non-inflamatory discussion about programming languages (hence the reason I've posted here quite a few times). I'm glad you're here backing up your side maturely.

I rarely go into a situation looking to piss people off, I just do anyways. Glad to hear I'm ineffective.

I'll close by saying that the important thing to me about Perl isn't if it's the perfect programming language or not. No, the important thing is that it let's me do the work I need to do quickly and easily while I get paid a handsome sum to do something I enjoy.

That's a good sentiment. I feel exactly the same way about Ruby (which I use at home and at work, whenever I'm not writing production code that has to be in C). But if we're talking about which language to use for a task, then these kinds of things should be the focus.

You can EASILY do SOAP and RMI-like stuff on Rails.

http://dev.ctor.org/doc/soap4r/RELEASE_en.html
http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/libdoc/drb/rdoc/

Not sure what you mean by Queues (in relation to a web app).

Wheres a good tutorial site? (multipule if possible)

Any books worth reading?

There's more than these, of course, but these will definitely get you started.

General resources sites?

Wheres a good tutorial site? (multipule if possible)

Any books worth reading?

There's more than these, of course, but these will definitely get you started.

General resources sites?

Here is how to get started:
Extending Ruby
That is from the 1rst edition, I recommend getting the 2nd.
Also take a look at the README.EXT (come with the ruby source code).

Here are some helpful links (a bit more advanced):
Ruby Source Code Browser
Ruby C API Docs
GC And Extensions
Ruby Talk

I must admit the learning curve for C extensions is a bit steap if you don't have experiance in either language. Also more tutorials are needed.

-Charlie

And here they are converted to actual links:

Ruby Home
http://www.ruby-lang.org/

Ruby Forum (new! primarily for beginners)
http://www.ruby-forum.org/bb/

Ruby Online Docs
http://www.ruby-doc.org/

Ruby Project Archives
http://raa.ruby-lang.org/
http://rubyforge.org/

Ruby Package Manager (easy to install ruby apps)
http://rubygems.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

Ruby IDE (free!)
http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

Ruby One-Click Installer for Windows
http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl

Ruby IRC channel
#ruby-lang at irc.openprojects.net

Ruby Newsgroup
news://comp.lang.ruby

Ruby Links
http://www.rubycentral.com/links/index.html
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ru by/Software/

...are also available on ruby-doc.org here.

I really think that if you're coming from Perl you'll prefer
Ruby to Python. No indentation hassles with Ruby, for example. You'll also like the way Ruby does OO compared to Perl OO. More Rubilicious links...

Also, The Pragmatic Programmers have released a new edition of Programming Ruby that's a great intro and reference to the language - go buy it from their website.

Ruby: Because I can't wait around for Perl 6 to get finished

Yup, I think those methods were moved into a new Base64 module after the 1.8.1 release. There are some notes on it here.

Interesting.
This is what ruby-doc had to say:
Until Ruby 1.8.1, these methods were defined at the top-level. Now they are in the Base64 module but included in the top-level, where their usage is deprecated.

You mean like:

Doc

http://www.ruby-doc.org/

http://www.rubycentral.com/book/

Unit Testing

http://testunit.talbott.ws/

http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyUnit

Library Repository

http://raa.ruby-lang.org/

Portability
Source compiles on anything vaugely Unix like

Windows binaries available

User Community
comp.lang.ruby

So, what were you on about again?

Please try here, here, and here. Oh, and here

Please try here, here, and here. Oh, and here

Please try here, here, and here. Oh, and here

Please try here, here, and here. Oh, and here

Plus, help for the built-in library is available via the commandline tool ri