The availability of additional packages is currently rather limited.
The new second edition Programming Ruby by Dave Thomas & co. has an excellent section on built-in classes and modules that starts at page 427 and goes to page 777 - and even it is not exhaustive. I've done Ruby programming for pay and I've not found that Ruby was lacking any functionality that I've needed. Sure, Perl's CPAN is bigger than Ruby's RAA, but there's quite a bit of redundancy in the CPAN as well. I suspect that we're gaining rapidly on Python's repository as well.
I really liked the idea of everything being an object until I realised that beyond what Python already offered, I had no need for this level of object orientated-ness.
Different strokes for different folks... I very much appreciate Ruby's Smalltalk level of OOness.
What it really boiled down to was that I couldn't find a single good reason to make me adopt Ruby
How about Ruby's blocks? Or the fact that Ruby's lambdas (closures) allow you to do a lot more than Python's do.
Instiki is the easiest wiki to setup in my experience and it's got some cool features like export to pdf and the option to use RedCloth markup. They've even got an OSX all-in-one version - just download it and run and you'll see 'Wiki' on your toolbar.
First off, this concept is by no means unique to Ruby, so give credit where credit's due. The whole concept of "blocks" as first class objects was stolen from Smalltalk
You're absolutely right. However, I do tend to prefer Ruby's syntax for blocks over Smalltalk's, but that's a matter of taste.
since Python has blocks and all those other Ruby feature, too.
I have yet to see anything in Python that is equivilent to the expressiveness and power of Ruby's blocks. (but I'll admit, I haven't kept up with all the latest changes in Python, maybe they've added something recently)
In Ruby blocks are used extensively in the standard libs because Ruby had blocks from day one. Blocks are full closures in Ruby and they can contain any code (as I recall there are restrictions on lambda code in Python).
I have a feeling that when Python folks talk about blocks they have something somewhat different in mind than Ruby's blocks.
For example, in Ruby you could do:
def process(items)
items.each {|item|
r = yield item
#do something with r
}
end
section = "Foo" #just to demo the closure'ness
process(['a','b','c']) {|i|
puts "in section: #{section}"
puts "...Processing #{i}..."
#a bunch more code
return result
}
So we say that the process method takes a block (the part between { and } ). Just curious: how would this be done in Python?
Since there is a shortage of nurses, why wouldn't hospitals be bidding for nurses, thus offering them higher pay? (instead of having nurses bid for jobs as they seem to be doing)
This sort of thing would work in bidding for software engineers where there are plenty of available workers but not as many jobs (have you seen some of the rates on Rent-a-coder - sometimes they're not getting much over minimum wage).
But if there are plenty of jobs, why would any nurse in their right mind under-bid for a job?
Doesn't the fact that it is an open standard mean that someone can just put the support for the new standard into Linux and be done with it?
No. First off, you assert that USB is an open standard. It may currently be, however, M$ intends to make some changes to the USB hardware that would require anyone who wants to put the new USB hardware on their motherboard to pay a licensing fee to M$. The licensing fee would be minimal and probably only used as a pretext to assert that there is IP that needs to be protected (and is thus not 'Open').
Secondly, the issue isn't putting support in Linux for the new standard; it's a hardware issue. M$ will develop some hardare IP that can't be used without paying a (probably very small) licensing fee. Motherboard makers will be willing to do this (and I'm sure that M$ will make it appealing for them - "The next version of Windows won't work without it!"). Then there would be the issue of drivers. M$ would probably supply binary drivers only, and this would be what would lock out Linux (apparently). Cringely implies that Linux hackers would probably come up with a way to get around this, however, they would be in legal danger (see DMCA, the upcoming INDUCE Act, and who knows what other laws will be passed by then).
The other side of this is that the USB drive makers will need to also add some new hardware to their drives to let the USB master know that they're 'trustworthy'. Old USB drives would still work, but as read-only devices. Again, M$ would probably license this IP to the USB drive makers for very cheap so they wouldn't have any qualms about using it and so their drives would work with the newest motherboards.
And if he's so sure it specifically excludes Linux, why is he doubtful about OS/X?
In the case of OSX, Apple may be able to pay a licensing fee to get the new USB hardware standard included in their machines. Apple controls it's own hardware and though they make heavy use of Open Source (Darwin, FreeBSD) they have no problem with paying licensing fees if they're reasonable.
MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be.
And they had no reason to be scared of losing the browser wars either (which they had assumed they had won), but lately IE has been losing quite a lot of market share to the likes of FireFox, Mozilla and Opera (but especially FireFox).
This is interesting: here we have a Perl 6 story and there are more comments about Ruby than about Perl 6.
It does seem as though Perl has become rather passe these days. Is Perl considered 'so '90's' now as to be irrelevant? Has Perl 6 missed it's opportunity window? Maybe if they would have had it done a year or two ago it would have still been able to generate some buzz, but now it would appear that the people who wanted major improvements to the language (especially OO features) have moved on to other languages like Ruby.
How about: Ruby: Because I'll be retired by the time Perl 6 is eventually finished
Two consecutive quarters of negative growth consitute a recession. That's what the term means, and so there isn't anthing inaccurate about saying that the small recession we had ended years ago, even if the job situation is sucky right now
Perhaps, but who really believes that the recession ended in November of 2001? And how exactly are we measuring growth? Growth in corporate profits maybe, but there's definately a disconnect now between that and how most workers in the country are doing.
Get out there and look for a job - any job.
Like one of them there manufacturing jobs in the fast food industry. Bush is trying to get burger-building reclassified as manufacturing to show that things aren't as bad as we thought.
It's too late, the jobs have already been lost and you ask us to pretend like they haven't been.
The US economy is an incredbily powerfull beast that has brought incredible wealth to millions of people. It's not going to stop working over night.
Why not? It's happened before (remember the Great Depression which ran from about 1929 to 1939?). The US economy-beast isn't bulletproof.
Whenever I hear about these hurricanes doing all this damage, I wonder why they don't start building their houses differently down there. What if instead of wooden or brick boxes (not very aerodynamic) they started building concrete domes - something that wouldn't catch the wind nearly as much. I suppose it wouldn't help with flood damage (though they might be able to do something waterproof, I suppose), but it would certainly help minimize the damage from wind. And they shouldn't allow trailers/mobile homes at all in places like Florida, but maybe the idea is that they're so cheap that they're essentially disposable dwellings.
Of course the kind of house you build and the materials you choose would vary from region to region (building out of concrete in California isn't such a good idea).
Your harddrives. In a nice, heavy, watertight safe. It's not going anywhere.
Saltwater can do some pretty crazy damage and given that they're predicting up to a 15ft storm surge, there are probably a lot of houses in Florida that are lower than that.
Maybe even something as simple as hiding a DVD-R under your desk at work, with all your worldly data on it.
Better check your employment agreement before you do that. If you develop code 'on the side' it could be difficult to prove that you didn't do any work on it at work. Maybe the company could claim ownership simply because it was on their premises. Definately could muddy the legal waters - tread carefully.
It's being used at NASA, NOAA, Intel (check out the next Intel Compilers Evaluation CD [I think they call it the developer's CD now] - it's got Ruby on it;-). There's the Rails Web app framework that's getting rave reviews.
Lots of cool stuff going on in the Ruby-world now.
Everything in Smalltalk is an object too. It also has a clean and clear syntax. It has been around for DECADES! Why not use that if everything being an object, and clean and clear syntax, are so revolutionary?
I think part of it is a matter of taste: I really don't like Smalltalk syntax. That's a personal thing. Coming from C/C++/Perl, Ruby's syntax made a lot more sense to me.
Also, Ruby has certain other nice features lacking in Smalltalk (well, they might be there now as addons) like regular expressions.
I'm sure Smalltalk is great. One of these days I'll try to overcome my initial distaste for it's syntax and actually try it out....different strokes for different folks.
It's more likely that we'll be able to use brainwaves to say, move a cursor, or input text to a computer than it will be to go the other way around.
I really doubt that we'll be able to input data from computers directly into our brain anytime soon - the human brain is very complicated and varies from individual to individual. Would everyone have exactly the same input regions, for example?
Slashdot Mirror
Bush said so. Never mind that you've already got a Masters degree or perhaps even a PhD. Community College is the ticket to your dreams!
The availability of additional packages is currently rather limited.
...but I doubt it's evey [sic] going to arise.
The new second edition Programming Ruby by Dave Thomas & co. has an excellent section on built-in classes and modules that starts at page 427 and goes to page 777 - and even it is not exhaustive. I've done Ruby programming for pay and I've not found that Ruby was lacking any functionality that I've needed. Sure, Perl's CPAN is bigger than Ruby's RAA, but there's quite a bit of redundancy in the CPAN as well. I suspect that we're gaining rapidly on Python's repository as well.
I really liked the idea of everything being an object until I realised that beyond what Python already offered, I had no need for this level of object orientated-ness.
Different strokes for different folks... I very much appreciate Ruby's Smalltalk level of OOness.
What it really boiled down to was that I couldn't find a single good reason to make me adopt Ruby
How about Ruby's blocks? Or the fact that Ruby's lambdas (closures) allow you to do a lot more than Python's do.
Two links:
Rails and Instiki
Both are generating quite a bit of buzz even outside of the Ruby community.
'nuff said
...from the article.
If you want any sort of software compatibility, driver support and don't want to be made fun of, Windows is the way to go.
Huh?
Actually, if you want to be made fun of (by those who count) you would be running Windows.
Instiki is the easiest wiki to setup in my experience and it's got some cool features like export to pdf and the option to use RedCloth markup. They've even got an OSX all-in-one version - just download it and run and you'll see 'Wiki' on your toolbar.
First off, this concept is by no means unique to Ruby, so give credit where credit's due. The whole concept of "blocks" as first class objects was stolen from Smalltalk
You're absolutely right. However, I do tend to prefer Ruby's syntax for blocks over Smalltalk's, but that's a matter of taste.
they're referred to as closures,
In Ruby a block is an anonymous closure.
I can get by without a gate, but I can't get by without a job.
I have yet to see anything in Python that is equivilent to the expressiveness and power of Ruby's blocks. (but I'll admit, I haven't kept up with all the latest changes in Python, maybe they've added something recently)
In Ruby blocks are used extensively in the standard libs because Ruby had blocks from day one. Blocks are full closures in Ruby and they can contain any code (as I recall there are restrictions on lambda code in Python).
I have a feeling that when Python folks talk about blocks they have something somewhat different in mind than Ruby's blocks.
For example, in Ruby you could do:So we say that the process method takes a block (the part between { and } ).
Just curious: how would this be done in Python?
So, is it ok as a beginner langage ?
For a tutorial, check out Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby, or if that's just a bit too bizarre you might have a look at this Ruby tutorial.
Since there is a shortage of nurses, why wouldn't hospitals be bidding for nurses, thus offering them higher pay? (instead of having nurses bid for jobs as they seem to be doing)
This sort of thing would work in bidding for software engineers where there are plenty of available workers but not as many jobs (have you seen some of the rates on Rent-a-coder - sometimes they're not getting much over minimum wage).
But if there are plenty of jobs, why would any nurse in their right mind under-bid for a job?
Doesn't the fact that it is an open standard mean that someone can just put the support for the new standard into Linux and be done with it?
No. First off, you assert that USB is an open standard. It may currently be, however, M$ intends to make some changes to the USB hardware that would require anyone who wants to put the new USB hardware on their motherboard to pay a licensing fee to M$. The licensing fee would be minimal and probably only used as a pretext to assert that there is IP that needs to be protected (and is thus not 'Open').
Secondly, the issue isn't putting support in Linux for the new standard; it's a hardware issue. M$ will develop some hardare IP that can't be used without paying a (probably very small) licensing fee. Motherboard makers will be willing to do this (and I'm sure that M$ will make it appealing for them - "The next version of Windows won't work without it!"). Then there would be the issue of drivers. M$ would probably supply binary drivers only, and this would be what would lock out Linux (apparently). Cringely implies that Linux hackers would probably come up with a way to get around this, however, they would be in legal danger (see DMCA, the upcoming INDUCE Act, and who knows what other laws will be passed by then).
The other side of this is that the USB drive makers will need to also add some new hardware to their drives to let the USB master know that they're 'trustworthy'. Old USB drives would still work, but as read-only devices. Again, M$ would probably license this IP to the USB drive makers for very cheap so they wouldn't have any qualms about using it and so their drives would work with the newest motherboards.
And if he's so sure it specifically excludes Linux, why is he doubtful about OS/X?
In the case of OSX, Apple may be able to pay a licensing fee to get the new USB hardware standard included in their machines. Apple controls it's own hardware and though they make heavy use of Open Source (Darwin, FreeBSD) they have no problem with paying licensing fees if they're reasonable.
MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be.
And they had no reason to be scared of losing the browser wars either (which they had assumed they had won), but lately IE has been losing quite a lot of market share to the likes of FireFox, Mozilla and Opera (but especially FireFox).
I especially like this part from the link about continuations:
For a more in-depth look at continuations, see "Run, Lola, Run", "The
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time", and "Back to the Future: Part II"
This is interesting: here we have a Perl 6 story and there are more comments about Ruby than about Perl 6.
It does seem as though Perl has become rather passe these days. Is Perl considered 'so '90's' now as to be irrelevant? Has Perl 6 missed it's opportunity window? Maybe if they would have had it done a year or two ago it would have still been able to generate some buzz, but now it would appear that the people who wanted major improvements to the language (especially OO features) have moved on to other languages like Ruby.
How about:
Ruby: Because I'll be retired by the time Perl 6 is eventually finished
OR:
Ruby: It's not vapor
This was rated '5 insightful'?
Two consecutive quarters of negative growth consitute a recession. That's what the term means, and so there isn't anthing inaccurate about saying that the small recession we had ended years ago, even if the job situation is sucky right now
Perhaps, but who really believes that the recession ended in November of 2001? And how exactly are we measuring growth? Growth in corporate profits maybe, but there's definately a disconnect now between that and how most workers in the country are doing.
Get out there and look for a job - any job.
Like one of them there manufacturing jobs in the fast food industry. Bush is trying to get burger-building reclassified as manufacturing to show that things aren't as bad as we thought.
It's too late, the jobs have already been lost and you ask us to pretend like they haven't been.
The US economy is an incredbily powerfull beast that has brought incredible wealth to millions of people. It's not going to stop working over night.
Why not? It's happened before (remember the Great Depression which ran from about 1929 to 1939?). The US economy-beast isn't bulletproof.
right up until you proposed writing in Bill O'Reilly for president.
Who really believes that the recession ended in November of 2001?
Whenever I hear about these hurricanes doing all this damage, I wonder why they don't start building their houses differently down there. What if instead of wooden or brick boxes (not very aerodynamic) they started building concrete domes - something that wouldn't catch the wind nearly as much. I suppose it wouldn't help with flood damage (though they might be able to do something waterproof, I suppose), but it would certainly help minimize the damage from wind. And they shouldn't allow trailers/mobile homes at all in places like Florida, but maybe the idea is that they're so cheap that they're essentially disposable dwellings.
Of course the kind of house you build and the materials you choose would vary from region to region (building out of concrete in California isn't such a good idea).
Your harddrives. In a nice, heavy, watertight safe. It's not going anywhere.
Saltwater can do some pretty crazy damage and given that they're predicting up to a 15ft storm surge, there are probably a lot of houses in Florida that are lower than that.
125MPH winds can do a lot of damage too...
Maybe even something as simple as hiding a DVD-R under your desk at work, with all your worldly data on it.
Better check your employment agreement before you do that. If you develop code 'on the side' it could be difficult to prove that you didn't do any work on it at work. Maybe the company could claim ownership simply because it was on their premises. Definately could muddy the legal waters - tread carefully.
It's being used at NASA, NOAA, Intel (check out the next Intel Compilers Evaluation CD [I think they call it the developer's CD now] - it's got Ruby on it ;-). There's the Rails Web app framework that's getting rave reviews.
Lots of cool stuff going on in the Ruby-world now.
Everything in Smalltalk is an object too. It also has a clean and clear syntax. It has been around for DECADES! Why not use that if everything being an object, and clean and clear syntax, are so revolutionary?
...different strokes for different folks.
I think part of it is a matter of taste: I really don't like Smalltalk syntax. That's a personal thing. Coming from C/C++/Perl, Ruby's syntax made a lot more sense to me.
Also, Ruby has certain other nice features lacking in Smalltalk (well, they might be there now as addons) like regular expressions.
I'm sure Smalltalk is great. One of these days I'll try to overcome my initial distaste for it's syntax and actually try it out.
you might actually get this patent killed in the process.
Would that be in the administrative process or in the user process?
killall sudo_patent
No, it means....
Mad Beer Disease! Beer that kills your brain cells! Oh, wait...
It's more likely that we'll be able to use brainwaves to say, move a cursor, or input text to a computer than it will be to go the other way around. I really doubt that we'll be able to input data from computers directly into our brain anytime soon - the human brain is very complicated and varies from individual to individual. Would everyone have exactly the same input regions, for example?