Slashdot Mirror
Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby
Colonel Panic writes "Why the lucky stiff has written one of the most unusual (and poignant) books about programming that I've ever encountered. The best description for it so far (seen on comp.lang.ruby) is that it's sort of like 'The Little Prince meets SICP'. However, it defies all attempts at description (at least in this small space), you've got to read it for yourself. Like SICP, the full text is available for free. This one is destined to become a classic - it will likely be known to future generations of jobless American computer scientists as 'The Fox Book.'"
Mirror in case the site gets slashdotted
If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
...for the code for the book.
The list archives are here and the project site is here.
The Army reading list
It's amusing. I laughed several times. It's definitely different. Obnoxious, sometimes, but different in a cool sort of way.
... ?
Ruby seems like Perl, written to be a lot less obscure and much more object-oriented. Cool. And the style reminds me a bit of Mr Bunny's Guide to ActiveX. If you liked his book, you should read that too, whether you're interested in ActiveX or not.
But the non-existance of Chapter 4, just after the book started to get into the meat of things, was a bit of a non-starter.
I guess it will be ready for Slashdot in, well, six months.
Or twelve?
Or
I guess it's up to the LuckyStiff. Maybe he's doing luckier stuff nowadays.
D
Children could be taught to program early in their school years.
Yes, and that's what we have languages like Logo for. Or, if you want something readable and more adult, Smalltalk (and the Squeak.org environment). Python, of course, originally also was designed for education.
Ruby is a nice language, but I don't think it comes out of an educational background. It syntax is cleaner than Perl's but doesn't seem like it would be all that intuitive to non-computer users either (both Smalltalk and Logo seem better in that regard).
Altogether, Ruby just seems like an odd choice when it comes to really caring about teaching people to program. Not a bad choice, but not clearly better than the more obvious choices either.
OK, I'm definitely a curmudgeon. Still I think I'm right.
Nifty, but this is about three chapters too premature to be posting it on Slashdot.
Seriously, the author is biting a LOT off and while one chapter is a good start, it remains to be seen whether the author is biting off more then they can chew.
Truthfully, many programming languages are easy but even in this introduction there are signs that this isn't going to go down as well as the author would like, like the "symbols" discussion which I understood perfectly but is likely to make, say, my zoology-trained wife go "huh? so what are they good for? why not just use strings?"
You can also over-simplify Perl or Python this way too but when you start discussing @ISA or __metaclass__es, you're in trouble, and there is often just no way around those things, esp. if you're trying to read the code of others.
I am hopeful this will turn out well; it looks like a lot of fun and is full-unto-overflowing with personality, which can certainly reach out to a new audience. But it is also extremely ambitious and will be time consuming, so I must confess to a little bit of pessimism that that quality of output can be sustained all the way to the end of the book.
Oh, and entirely seperately, comparing a single chapter of an otherwise-unfinished book to the SICP disrespects the SICP. You do neither work a favor by comparing the two.
C and derived languages have a datatype called "integer" which is actually just a small subset of integral numbers, as well as a datatype called "char" which doesn't hold characters at all, but is a subset of "integers". This doesn't seem to have stopped their adoption, even if it contributes to the aquired stupidity common amongst their users.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
I'm not sure I follow... a glance at ruby's docs implies that it uses good 'ol IEEE 754 standard floating point numbers, and it calls them... "Float"s. Another look shows that the "BigDecimal" library /module/thingy actually uses decimal arithmetic. So I'm uncertain what you are criticizing...
Like more robust libraries and some better documentation. I know mr. stiff has contributed to that end and I hope he doesn't waste more of his time on silly story books!
.. WOW, code just flowed from my fingers and I was constant amazed at how little effort it took to make a well-written program.
When I moved from Perl to Python for big projects, it was pretty cool. I could read my code, and it was a lot more consistent because of the built-in object support. Python doesn't exactly register high on the "elegance" meter but it works.
Then I tried Ruby
But, Python has all the docs and libs. So at work I use Python. I enjoy the new features that are being bolted on here and there, but it's got all the signs of a language that peaked in popularity before the design was finished.
So I don't use Ruby for much except code generation and other little tasks. I want to though.. I'm waiting until somebody writes better libs and docs, or at least until I have the time to contribute.
So please, less pretentious web sites, more English documentation.
A variable is a box
Wrong. In C/C++ a variable is a box. In Ruby (as in Python and many other dynamic languages) a variable has reference symantics, making the "nickname" metaphore reasonably apt.
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum