You might want to read this presentation from OSCON 2005 called "10 Things Every Java Developer Should Know About Ruby", especially this section, "Item #6 Objects are Strongly Typed not Statically Typed" (http://onestepback.org/articles/10things/item6.ht ml)
The Java comparison is inappropriate, because while the subclass of the type pointed to by the reference might change, the reference remains the same -- the actual type doesn't change. So declaring everying as an Object is useless for doing any real work, because a String or Integer (or anything else) referenced as an Object must be cast in order to call subclass methods. This doesn't work in Java:
Object o = "Hello, World";
System.out.println(o.length()); // This works:
System.out.println((String) o).length());
In Ruby, the actual type is changed, yet any behaviour not specific to the current type of the object is invalid. Hence the type is strong, but dynamic. You can't call "downto" on a String (or "downcase" on a Fixnum), because it doesn't make sense.
"The main problem I have with RoR is that the Ruby language is weakly typed."
Wrong. Ruby is strongly typed. What makes things different than Java is that typing is dynamic, not static. So in Ruby, you can do this
i = 1
puts i.class # This prints "FixNum"
i = "one"
puts i.class # This prints "String"
In Java you can't (variables are typed when declared.) So, the type can change, but it is strong.
Second, you aren't contrasting the tool for documentation so much as the person who wrote the documentation. If you were to say that "the community of developers working on CPAN modules is better at documenting than 99% of the developers releasing OS Java software" I would have to agree with you.
Third: Calling DBI a "package" and equating it with Java packages isn't really fair. A Java package can consist of several related classes, while DBI is just one module out of possibly dozens that may be in a system, and more comparable to a class than a package. You still need a general idea of what you're looking for to even run perldoc.
Fourth: In javadoc, if you have the documentation up for a single class, getting to any piece of it is still just a touch of the "/" key (if you're in Firefox, other browsers may require something like Ctrl-F)
There are other things I like about Javadoc, but that has less to do with javadoc itself, and more to do with how people have extended it (you know, Ctrl-Q to see the javadoc for a method in IDEA, or tools like XDoclet, being able to add my own tags and easily write extensions to handle them), and I'm sure you can do the same things with POD.
In the end, let it be known that I was not interested in defending Javadoc so much as hearing why you like POD.
C'mon, you can't drop the POD bomb without an explanation. Even tho' javadoc isn't perfect, it makes it easy to document at any level (class/method/field) with a nice reporting tool built into the language.
While POD can do links and crossreferences, it's doesn't (IFAIK) analyze the symbols of the codebase being documented and ensure that a) they are there, and b) of the right type (Perl doesn't have many types, but it has types;-) And to call POD's syntax obscure is an insult to obscurity.
In short, while I love Perl and like POD, if I had to choose a language for my next project based solely on the built-in documentation tools (well, okay, it that was the only criteria I'd quit the job, but this is hypothetical) it would not be Perl.
Which is why 10 years from now Jackson's trilogy (whether faithful to the book or not) will still be seen as a landmark in fantasy/sci fi cinema and the Harry Potter movies will have been forgotten.
Given the inconsistencies of recent genre trilogies (yeah, okay, just the matrix recently), I think the popular and critical success of the LotR movies could open some previously closed doors for similar projects.
One summer I was working for the provincial government highway department. After an exciting month of painting signposts (and you wondered how they stayed so white) I got put on roadkill patrol.
Three day rotation: One day North-South, one day East-West, one day grid roads. If I saw road kill, I buried it - the whole concept was a little macabre, and believe me when I say the smell of a dead fox lying bloated in sun is best left to the imagination.
One day we got the call to go pick up a dead deer from a farm. At any rate, it had been in standing water for at least a few days in the hot sun and when we tried to load it onto the back of truck, well wouldn't you know it, the old girl just broke in half...
I know you're trying to be funny, but emotion is a big part of chess...
Ruy Lopez (the man behind the opening) suggested placing the chessboard in such a way that the sun would reflect into the opponent's eyes.
It's not uncommon for a player to make a bold sacrifice, even if it creates a slight disadvantage tactically, for the sole purpose of creating uncertainty across the board.
Sometimes you can trick your opponent into moving too fast if you start moving fast.
Or, if you're just a jerk you might smack the clock or bang your pieces down for a little intimidation action.
Each of these tactics are primarily aimed at triggering an emotion (generally fear, but sometimes anger) in an opponent so that they will not play at their highest level.
Chess is emotion.
On a side note, remember the old SNL sketch "High School Chess Coach"?
Pawn to Rook 4, Pawn to Rook 4!!! You call that castling?!? Why don't you just give him the king, give it to him?
A few years back when I was in the middle of one of those "electives only" semesters in uni, I actually created an entire team of people I knew - I even asked them which numbers they wanted and took a few pictures to put into the game
If that wasn't geeky enough, I actually had another friend make some custom jerseys, which I quickly imported.
If that wasn't geeky enough, I played through an entire season with 20 minute periods, following the actual NHL schedule and emailed out a stats spreadsheet to all the people on my team.
The fact of the matter is, it was a hell of a lot more fun to see one friend get revenge on Ray Bourque for breaking another friends jaw and end up suspended that it would be to watch the same situation play out with say, Joe Sakic and Chris Simon.
I probably wouldn't have made it through even half a season with the standard rosters and it proved so popular with the buds that they were a little disappointed when I stopped doing it, but, well, I guess I got a life;-)
You gotta love a pen that looks like a tiny little rocket launcher when you unscrew the tip and remove all the ink parts.
I used to buy these pens and start down the "I'll use different colours for different functions in my note taking" path, only to end up throwing out the pen when the blue ink ran out or the green ink was too clogged to flow.
Didn't someone make a pen with more than four colours?
By making a law that makes it illegal to sell to minors (as opposed to making it illegal for minors to possess the materials), it makes it more difficult for minors to procure such materials. Thus if parents feel their children (and the vast majority of 18 year olds act far more like children than adults) can handle a certain title, then they can purchase it for them.
True, you might have kids getting older people to "pull games" for them, but if a kid gets that idea and follows through on it, that's the parent's fault too.
Slashdot Mirror
The Java comparison is inappropriate, because while the subclass of the type pointed to by the reference might change, the reference remains the same -- the actual type doesn't change. So declaring everying as an Object is useless for doing any real work, because a String or Integer (or anything else) referenced as an Object must be cast in order to call subclass methods. This doesn't work in Java:
Object o = "Hello, World";
// This works:
System.out.println(o.length());
System.out.println((String) o).length());
In Ruby, the actual type is changed, yet any behaviour not specific to the current type of the object is invalid. Hence the type is strong, but dynamic. You can't call "downto" on a String (or "downcase" on a Fixnum), because it doesn't make sense.
"The main problem I have with RoR is that the Ruby language is weakly typed."
Wrong. Ruby is strongly typed. What makes things different than Java is that typing is dynamic, not static. So in Ruby, you can do this
i = 1
puts i.class # This prints "FixNum"
i = "one"
puts i.class # This prints "String"
In Java you can't (variables are typed when declared.) So, the type can change, but it is strong.
Second, you aren't contrasting the tool for documentation so much as the person who wrote the documentation. If you were to say that "the community of developers working on CPAN modules is better at documenting than 99% of the developers releasing OS Java software" I would have to agree with you.
Third: Calling DBI a "package" and equating it with Java packages isn't really fair. A Java package can consist of several related classes, while DBI is just one module out of possibly dozens that may be in a system, and more comparable to a class than a package. You still need a general idea of what you're looking for to even run perldoc.
Fourth: In javadoc, if you have the documentation up for a single class, getting to any piece of it is still just a touch of the "/" key (if you're in Firefox, other browsers may require something like Ctrl-F)
There are other things I like about Javadoc, but that has less to do with javadoc itself, and more to do with how people have extended it (you know, Ctrl-Q to see the javadoc for a method in IDEA, or tools like XDoclet, being able to add my own tags and easily write extensions to handle them), and I'm sure you can do the same things with POD.
In the end, let it be known that I was not interested in defending Javadoc so much as hearing why you like POD.
While POD can do links and crossreferences, it's doesn't (IFAIK) analyze the symbols of the codebase being documented and ensure that a) they are there, and b) of the right type (Perl doesn't have many types, but it has types ;-) And to call POD's syntax obscure is an insult to obscurity.
In short, while I love Perl and like POD, if I had to choose a language for my next project based solely on the built-in documentation tools (well, okay, it that was the only criteria I'd quit the job, but this is hypothetical) it would not be Perl.
Given the inconsistencies of recent genre trilogies (yeah, okay, just the matrix recently), I think the popular and critical success of the LotR movies could open some previously closed doors for similar projects.
Three day rotation: One day North-South, one day East-West, one day grid roads. If I saw road kill, I buried it - the whole concept was a little macabre, and believe me when I say the smell of a dead fox lying bloated in sun is best left to the imagination.
One day we got the call to go pick up a dead deer from a farm. At any rate, it had been in standing water for at least a few days in the hot sun and when we tried to load it onto the back of truck, well wouldn't you know it, the old girl just broke in half...
Ruy Lopez (the man behind the opening) suggested placing the chessboard in such a way that the sun would reflect into the opponent's eyes.
It's not uncommon for a player to make a bold sacrifice, even if it creates a slight disadvantage tactically, for the sole purpose of creating uncertainty across the board.
Sometimes you can trick your opponent into moving too fast if you start moving fast.
Or, if you're just a jerk you might smack the clock or bang your pieces down for a little intimidation action.
Each of these tactics are primarily aimed at triggering an emotion (generally fear, but sometimes anger) in an opponent so that they will not play at their highest level.
Chess is emotion.
On a side note, remember the old SNL sketch "High School Chess Coach"?
Pawn to Rook 4, Pawn to Rook 4!!! You call that castling?!? Why don't you just give him the king, give it to him?
I think the reasons why the Game Boy was the most/only successful portable gaming system were
<david_letterman voice="top_ten">
One word: Tetris.</david_letterman>
A few years back when I was in the middle of one of those "electives only" semesters in uni, I actually created an entire team of people I knew - I even asked them which numbers they wanted and took a few pictures to put into the game
If that wasn't geeky enough, I actually had another friend make some custom jerseys, which I quickly imported.
If that wasn't geeky enough, I played through an entire season with 20 minute periods, following the actual NHL schedule and emailed out a stats spreadsheet to all the people on my team.
The fact of the matter is, it was a hell of a lot more fun to see one friend get revenge on Ray Bourque for breaking another friends jaw and end up suspended that it would be to watch the same situation play out with say, Joe Sakic and Chris Simon.
I probably wouldn't have made it through even half a season with the standard rosters and it proved so popular with the buds that they were a little disappointed when I stopped doing it, but, well, I guess I got a life ;-)
</geek>You gotta love a pen that looks like a tiny little rocket launcher when you unscrew the tip and remove all the ink parts.
I used to buy these pens and start down the "I'll use different colours for different functions in my note taking" path, only to end up throwing out the pen when the blue ink ran out or the green ink was too clogged to flow.
Didn't someone make a pen with more than four colours?
I think that's really the point, though.
By making a law that makes it illegal to sell to minors (as opposed to making it illegal for minors to possess the materials), it makes it more difficult for minors to procure such materials. Thus if parents feel their children (and the vast majority of 18 year olds act far more like children than adults) can handle a certain title, then they can purchase it for them.
True, you might have kids getting older people to "pull games" for them, but if a kid gets that idea and follows through on it, that's the parent's fault too.