Thinking of learning Ruby
anonimous
experience with Java, recently though I decided to quit learning Java
because I found it rather slow and lacking, the biggest problem is that Sun
Microsystems made to many libraries for some functions and not enough for
other functions, they also have quite a few bugs that are noticable when one
tries to apply custom effects to GUI's such as setting colours with
.setBackground() and .setForeground() forsetting the colours. I am now
looking for one or two alternative programming languages to replace Java, I
am mostly interested in C, C++, Ruby, Python and Perl. What I would like to
know is which one would be better off in your opinion(s), one of the things
I concider important in a programming language is weather or not its good
enough to get me a job in programming. I look forward to your reply(s) :-)
Daniel Carrera
[snip]
> I am mostly interested in C, C++, Ruby, Python and Perl. What I would
> like to know is which one would be better off in your opinion(s),
> one of the things I concider important in a programming language is
> weather or not its good enough to get me a job in programming. I
> look forward to your reply(s) :-)
Well, in its strictest form your question is impossible to answer.
Some of the best languages are the ones least likely to get you a job
in programming. :-)
IMHO, the best language is Ruby. I like C a lot too, but I use it
mostly as a complement to Ruby.
The langauges that are most likely to give you a job are C++, Java and
Perl.
Web programming is usually done in Java or Perl (depending on whether
it's client side or server side respectively). Application programming
is done in C++.
Perhaps you should explain more clearly what you have in mind.
--
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
MikkelFJ
"Daniel Carrera" <dcar...@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:2003031000...@math.umd.edu...
> IMHO, the best language is Ruby. I like C a lot too, but I use it
> mostly as a complement to Ruby.
>
> The langauges that are most likely to give you a job are C++, Java and
> Perl.
I agree with the above, except C# is also becoming very important. It would
probably deal with some of the library issues. In the scripting section PHP
might also be relevant, depending on web focus.
I would also like to add Ocaml as a language to consider.
The two best languages are IMHO Ruby, OCaml. Apart from the language
qualities, both these languages have easy interfacing with C which is
important for real software solutions.
If focus is on serious GUI development I think ADA and Eiffel might be
interesting.
Why learn Ruby?
It's so easy to getting started that it will be worth your while even if you
choose not to use it. Ruby will grow on you - it is a very powerful
language.
Mikkel
Phil Tomson
Welcome,
Of course we're pretty biased toward Ruby being your next programming
language ;-)
I think you'll find Ruby's libraries a lot more compact than Java's.
Also, you'll generally find that you can do the same program in Ruby with
about 1/2 to 1/3 of the lines as the equivlient Java program (with no hit
to readability as you would have in Perl).
Now as to your point about which language to learn in order to find a job
in programming:
1) Right now there aren't many jobs in programming and there are lots of
_very_ experienced folks out there who know several of the languages you
list (quite well) and are not finding work.... so in the short term, don't
expect to find a job in programming unless you've got several years of
experience - you're competing against folks who have lots of experience.
2) After reading and considering #1, learn C++ - when the job market does
eventually return (someyear - a year ago I said "In a year", now I make no
predictions other than it definately won't be anytime this year.) Knowing
C++ still gets you into the most number of places.
3) Now, after considering #2, forget about which programming language will
get you a job and think about which programming language will cause you to
learn something about the practice of programming. I would suggest that
Ruby is an excellent choice for this. (and one can argue that you've got
plenty of time to do this) You'll definately learn object oriented
programming with Ruby and it will definately have a different flavor than
OO programming you've dont in Java because Ruby isn't statically typed.
OO programming in Ruby 'feels' much different than it does in C++ or Java
and it's a very positive feeling, IMHO. [That's not to say that there are
no Ruby jobs out there, but the number of jobs that list Ruby as a
requirement is still very small. However, I've found Ruby in lots of
places where I didn't expect to find it - Ruby is being snuk in the
backdoor at lots of places kind of like Perl was 8-10 years ago.]
You mention that Java is slow. I'm assuming you mean that programs
written in Java are slow to execute. You definately won't find Ruby
faster than Java for most things. However, it's quite easy to write
extentions for Ruby in C/C++ (another reason to learn C/C++) such that you
use C/C++ for speed critical parts of your code and Ruby for the parts you
want ot develop quickly.
Phil
anonimous
I'm interested in a programming language that can be used for anything in
general, web programming is not to important but I would like to be able
to create graphical user interfaces with Qt or GTK and do just about
anything without having to write to much code. Another thing that I think
might be important is how good ruby would work as a prototyping
language, because I also plan on learning C++, and prototyping can be
a good time saver when working with a larger programming language.
anonimous
"MikkelFJ" <mikkelfj-...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3e6be1af$0$136$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Daniel Carrera" <dcar...@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:2003031000...@math.umd.edu...
>
> > IMHO, the best language is Ruby. I like C a lot too, but I use it
> > mostly as a complement to Ruby.
> >
> > The langauges that are most likely to give you a job are C++, Java and
> > Perl.
>
> I agree with the above, except C# is also becoming very important. It
would
> probably deal with some of the library issues. In the scripting section
PHP
> might also be relevant, depending on web focus.
I'm not very fond of Microsoft though, I think I'd stay away from any of
their
programming languages, after all, lots of people put their faith in Visual
Basic
and now Microsoft isn't maintaining it any more that I know of.
>
> I would also like to add Ocaml as a language to consider.
I've never heard of Ocaml before, is there a website with information on it?
>
> The two best languages are IMHO Ruby, OCaml. Apart from the language
> qualities, both these languages have easy interfacing with C which is
> important for real software solutions.
>
> If focus is on serious GUI development I think ADA and Eiffel might be
> interesting.
I've taken a quick look at Ada before, but I have never heard of Eiffel.
>
> Why learn Ruby?
> It's so easy to getting started that it will be worth your while even if
you
> choose not to use it. Ruby will grow on you - it is a very powerful
> language.
How long does it take to get a good enough understanding of Ruby to
start writing programs?
What books would you recommend for learning Ruby?
>
> Mikkel
>
>
Daniel Carrera
> How long does it take to get a good enough understanding of Ruby to
> start writing programs?
About a minute I'd say. :-)
> What books would you recommend for learning Ruby?
Well, there is an EXCELLENT tutorial to be found at:
http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/0.3/
It's written by a talented Canadian mathematecian of unparalleled
humiliity. For instance, he is so humble that he would never take an
opportunity like this to promote his own tutorial. ;-)
Seriously, this tutorial does give you a fine introduction. And if you
want more it does have a listing of good Ruby books.
anonimous
"Phil Tomson" <pt...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:b4gn8...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Sounds good :-)
>
> Now as to your point about which language to learn in order to find a job
> in programming:
> 1) Right now there aren't many jobs in programming and there are lots of
> _very_ experienced folks out there who know several of the languages you
> list (quite well) and are not finding work.... so in the short term, don't
> expect to find a job in programming unless you've got several years of
> experience - you're competing against folks who have lots of experience.
> 2) After reading and considering #1, learn C++ - when the job market does
> eventually return (someyear - a year ago I said "In a year", now I make no
> predictions other than it definately won't be anytime this year.) Knowing
> C++ still gets you into the most number of places.
Althoug getting a job in programming is a concern of mine, I think I'd still
be
able to find another line of work. I am however very interested in being a
volunteer developer for a Linux distribution, it would certainly help me
learn
the programming language.
> 3) Now, after considering #2, forget about which programming language will
> get you a job and think about which programming language will cause you to
> learn something about the practice of programming. I would suggest that
> Ruby is an excellent choice for this. (and one can argue that you've got
> plenty of time to do this) You'll definately learn object oriented
> programming with Ruby and it will definately have a different flavor than
> OO programming you've dont in Java because Ruby isn't statically typed.
> OO programming in Ruby 'feels' much different than it does in C++ or Java
> and it's a very positive feeling, IMHO. [That's not to say that there are
> no Ruby jobs out there, but the number of jobs that list Ruby as a
> requirement is still very small. However, I've found Ruby in lots of
> places where I didn't expect to find it - Ruby is being snuk in the
> backdoor at lots of places kind of like Perl was 8-10 years ago.]
>
> You mention that Java is slow. I'm assuming you mean that programs
> written in Java are slow to execute. You definately won't find Ruby
> faster than Java for most things. However, it's quite easy to write
> extentions for Ruby in C/C++ (another reason to learn C/C++) such that you
> use C/C++ for speed critical parts of your code and Ruby for the parts you
> want ot develop quickly.
The problem with java is that their programs are slow to execute, while it
is
running, speed isn't of to much importance as long as it doesn't consume to
much
ram, I'd like my programs to be run on slower computers as well as faster
ones
and Java programs are really bad for that kind of stuff.
>
> Phil
Daniel Carrera
> I'm interested in a programming language that can be used for anything in
> general, web programming is not to important but I would like to be able
> to create graphical user interfaces with Qt or GTK and do just about
> anything without having to write to much code.
Then Ruby is an excellent choice. Ruby is inteded as a general purpose
language. There are Ruby bindings for Gtk1 and Gtk2. I don't think
that there are bindings for Qt though. Ruby makes a great
web-programming language, and an excellent general-purpose language.
> Another thing that I think might be important is how good ruby would
> work as a prototyping language, because I also plan on learning C++,
> and prototyping can be a good time saver when working with a larger
> programming language.
Ruby and Python are probably the best languages for prototyping.
Warning though, after you write your prototype in Ruby you might find
that it works so well that you won't want to do it in C++ :-)
Seth Kurtzberg
of the programmer. In fact, just the reverse is true (there are as many jobs
for COBOL programmers as there are for any other language). In the OO area
the vast majority of jobs are for C++ and/or Java, even though these
languages aren't even real OO languages.
As far as the GUI functionality, that is really a property of the GUI library
and not the language. Java has blurred this distinction somewhat, but for
other languages there are multiple GUI libraries available which have
different characteristics.
Ruby will steer you towards better programming practice than many other
languages. Also, unless you learn Ruby or Smalltalk (of the widely
distributed languages) you won't really know what OO is about.
In the long run you will be better served by broadening your knowledge and
understanding, and putting yourself in the best position to handle language
technology as it evolves.
On Sunday 09 March 2003 05:22 pm, anonimous wrote:
> I have abour 3 or 4 years experience with Linux, and about 2 years
> experience with Java, recently though I decided to quit learning Java
> because I found it rather slow and lacking, the biggest problem is that Sun
> Microsystems made to many libraries for some functions and not enough for
> other functions, they also have quite a few bugs that are noticable when
> one tries to apply custom effects to GUI's such as setting colours with
> ..setBackground() and .setForeground() forsetting the colours. I am now
> looking for one or two alternative programming languages to replace Java, I
> am mostly interested in C, C++, Ruby, Python and Perl. What I would like to
> know is which one would be better off in your opinion(s), one of the things
> I concider important in a programming language is weather or not its good
> enough to get me a job in programming. I look forward to your reply(s) :-)
--
Seth Kurtzberg
M. I. S. Corp.
480-661-1849
se...@cql.com
Seth Kurtzberg
> "Daniel Carrera" <dcar...@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:2003031000...@math.umd.edu...
>
> > IMHO, the best language is Ruby. I like C a lot too, but I use it
> > mostly as a complement to Ruby.
> >
> > The langauges that are most likely to give you a job are C++, Java and
> > Perl.
>
> I agree with the above, except C# is also becoming very important. It would
> probably deal with some of the library issues. In the scripting section PHP
> might also be relevant, depending on web focus.
>
> I would also like to add Ocaml as a language to consider.
>
> The two best languages are IMHO Ruby, OCaml. Apart from the language
> qualities, both these languages have easy interfacing with C which is
> important for real software solutions.
If you are of a language theoretical bent, throw Haskell into the mix as well.
>
> If focus is on serious GUI development I think ADA and Eiffel might be
> interesting.
>
> Why learn Ruby?
> It's so easy to getting started that it will be worth your while even if
> you choose not to use it. Ruby will grow on you - it is a very powerful
> language.
>
> Mikkel
--
Daniel Carrera
> I'd still be able to find another line of work. I am however very
> interested in being a volunteer developer for a Linux distribution,
> it would certainly help me learn the programming language.
Most of Linux/OSS is written in C, in the Unix tradition. KDE is an
exception, it is mostly C++.
C is easier to learn than C++, and to some degree it is a subset of
C++.
I would suggest you learn Ruby first, then C then (possibly) C++. In
my case I've never had a compelling reason to learn C++. I only know
C.
Seth Kurtzberg
I've most definitely seen an uptick in programming jobs in the last month or
so. After seeing basically nothing for quite a while, I've had two
conversations with potential employers. Of course, that is hardly
earthshaking, but it is an improvement.
Knowing
> C++ still gets you into the most number of places.
> 3) Now, after considering #2, forget about which programming language will
> get you a job and think about which programming language will cause you to
> learn something about the practice of programming. I would suggest that
> Ruby is an excellent choice for this. (and one can argue that you've got
> plenty of time to do this) You'll definately learn object oriented
> programming with Ruby and it will definately have a different flavor than
> OO programming you've dont in Java because Ruby isn't statically typed.
> OO programming in Ruby 'feels' much different than it does in C++ or Java
> and it's a very positive feeling, IMHO. [That's not to say that there are
> no Ruby jobs out there, but the number of jobs that list Ruby as a
> requirement is still very small. However, I've found Ruby in lots of
> places where I didn't expect to find it - Ruby is being snuk in the
> backdoor at lots of places kind of like Perl was 8-10 years ago.]
>
> You mention that Java is slow. I'm assuming you mean that programs
> written in Java are slow to execute. You definately won't find Ruby
> faster than Java for most things. However, it's quite easy to write
> extentions for Ruby in C/C++ (another reason to learn C/C++) such that you
> use C/C++ for speed critical parts of your code and Ruby for the parts you
> want ot develop quickly.
>
> Phil
--
Seth Kurtzberg
> "MikkelFJ" <mikkelfj-...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3e6be1af$0$136$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
> > "Daniel Carrera" <dcar...@math.umd.edu> wrote in message
> > news:2003031000...@math.umd.edu...
> >
> > > IMHO, the best language is Ruby. I like C a lot too, but I use it
> > > mostly as a complement to Ruby.
> > >
> > > The langauges that are most likely to give you a job are C++, Java and
> > > Perl.
> >
> > I agree with the above, except C# is also becoming very important. It
>
> would
>
> > probably deal with some of the library issues. In the scripting section
>
> PHP
>
> > might also be relevant, depending on web focus.
>
> I'm not very fond of Microsoft though, I think I'd stay away from any of
> their
> programming languages, after all, lots of people put their faith in Visual
> Basic
> and now Microsoft isn't maintaining it any more that I know of.
PHP is not a microsoft language.
>
> > I would also like to add Ocaml as a language to consider.
>
> I've never heard of Ocaml before, is there a website with information on
> it?
Absolutely. Google will find it for you.
>
> > The two best languages are IMHO Ruby, OCaml. Apart from the language
> > qualities, both these languages have easy interfacing with C which is
> > important for real software solutions.
> >
> > If focus is on serious GUI development I think ADA and Eiffel might be
> > interesting.
>
> I've taken a quick look at Ada before, but I have never heard of Eiffel.
>
> > Why learn Ruby?
> > It's so easy to getting started that it will be worth your while even if
>
> you
>
> > choose not to use it. Ruby will grow on you - it is a very powerful
> > language.
>
> How long does it take to get a good enough understanding of Ruby to
> start writing programs?
> What books would you recommend for learning Ruby?
>
> > Mikkel
--
Seth Kurtzberg
> > Althoug getting a job in programming is a concern of mine, I think
> > I'd still be able to find another line of work. I am however very
> > interested in being a volunteer developer for a Linux distribution,
> > it would certainly help me learn the programming language.
>
> Most of Linux/OSS is written in C, in the Unix tradition. KDE is an
> exception, it is mostly C++.
>
> C is easier to learn than C++, and to some degree it is a subset of
> C++.
ANSI C is a proper subset of C++, so not "to some degree", 100%.
>
> I would suggest you learn Ruby first, then C then (possibly) C++. In
> my case I've never had a compelling reason to learn C++. I only know
> C.
--
anonimous
I think Ruby would be better in my case then Python, now all I need is a
quick tutorial/introduction. :-)
Adam Williams
> and not the language. Java has blurred this distinction somewhat, but for
> other languages there are multiple GUI libraries available which have
> different characteristics.
>
> Ruby will steer you towards better programming practice than many other
> languages. Also, unless you learn Ruby or Smalltalk (of the widely
> distributed languages) you won't really know what OO is about.
[AIW] If you don't study under experienced OO developers, you will be less
likely to know good OOP. Also, Java now has an excellent GUI toolkit. Check out
www.eclipse.org. Make sure you search for SWT and JFace.
Kent Dahl
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:42:50AM +0900, anonimous wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in a programming language that can be used for anything in
> > general, web programming is not to important but I would like to be able
> > to create graphical user interfaces with Qt or GTK and do just about
> > anything without having to write to much code.
>
> Then Ruby is an excellent choice. Ruby is inteded as a general purpose
> language. There are Ruby bindings for Gtk1 and Gtk2. I don't think
> that there are bindings for Qt though.
Of course there is :-)
http://raa.ruby-lang.org/list.rhtml?name=ruby-qt
--
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_ _~_ __[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]___/~
))\_student_/(( \__d L b__/ NTNU - graduate engineering - 5. year )
( \__\_鮸鮛/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
\____/_鯻\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)
Robert Klemme
"Daniel Carrera" <dcar...@math.umd.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2003031000...@math.umd.edu...
> Web programming is usually done in Java or Perl (depending on whether
> it's client side or server side respectively). Application programming
> is done in C++.
Although this might not be the right place, I would like to make clear that
Java is quite a good choice for the server side of web applications. The
servlet / JSP / taglib approach together with Java's built in support for
multithreading is quite cabable of delivering fast and complex web
applications. (Note: I did not say J2EE - that's another story.)
Regards
robert
Sascha Dördelmann
> I am now
> looking for one or two alternative programming languages to replace Java, I
> am mostly interested in C, C++, Ruby, Python and Perl. What I would like to
> know is which one would be better off in your opinion(s), one of the things
> I concider important in a programming language is weather or not its good
> enough to get me a job in programming.
Nobody mentioned Smalltalk, yet, so I'll do it. Smalltalk and Ruby are
programming languages that make programmers happy. Smalltalk has the
best debugging environment I've ever seen. If you want to write big
applications, Smalltalk should be in the list of languages to
consider.
But to be honest: Ruby might have a better future than Smalltalk.
Smalltalk had some image problems and might never recover. Ruby is
still gaining attraction and will hopefully outrun Perl in about 3-5
years.
There are still some Smalltalk applications to maintain but I'm not so
sure about Smalltalk or Ruby getting you a job now. From that point of
view I would encourage you to stay with Java but become expert in one
of the fields
- component technologies
- persistence middleware
- GUI programming
- UML, object oriented design
Lerning a second language will add to that, too. Of course you could
learn SOAP or the FOX GUI toolkit with ruby. Smalltalk is the language
of choice to learn OOP and design patterns. (Java doesn't teach you
OOP very well.)
Someone suggested C#; .NET isn't only C# and VB. You could also try
out .NET with Smallscript (S#, Smalltalk for .NET).
Don't try C++ or Perl if you are no masochist. I know what I'm talking
about, I use them both. (I have to admit that there are some
interesting ideas behind generic programming in C++ but I hate the
loss in productivity I notice with static typed languages.)
Have fun with ruby and have a look at http://www.whysmalltalk.com.
Cheers
Sascha
MikkelFJ
"anonimous" <n.t...@roadrunner.nf.net> wrote in message
news:b4gpu2$pru$1...@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> I'm not very fond of Microsoft though, I think I'd stay away from any of
> their
I like to separate Microsoft politics from technologies.
> programming languages, after all, lots of people put their faith in Visual
> Basic
> and now Microsoft isn't maintaining it any more that I know of.
C# really is a continuation of the Delphi project - it is very strongly
support in the open source Mono-project - extremely rapid progress - very
impressive.
That said, I don't particularly like Java or C# as languages although they
are not bad. But they do have large supporting libraries.
Visual Basic is still supported, but primary focus is now in the .Net
version. VB6.0 and VB-Script still have relevance due to their tight
integration with COM.
> >
> > I would also like to add Ocaml as a language to consider.
>
> I've never heard of Ocaml before, is there a website with information on
it?
official site:
http://caml.inria.fr
unofficial nicer looking site, less frequently maintained.
http://www.ocaml.org
great book: http://caml.inria.fr/Examples/eng.html
The links seem to nok work very well at the moment.
OCaml requires some devotion to learn. It is not hard, but somewhat errh
different - and the syntax is not very nice. Once you learn it, you realize
the syntax really is very effective.
OCaml is a member of the ML language family. It is very good at handling
recursive datatypes. It deals with functional programming, imperative
programming and object oriented programming. It is very fast - often between
C and C++. With a little help from C functions you can write real
applications where you would otherwise use C++. OCaml generates executable
binaries where Ruby requires the Ruby interpreter and OCaml is faster than
Ruby. Ruby has a friendlier syntax than OCaml and more focus on objects.
It's good to know both languages.
If you want to do commercial software development, C#, C++ and Java are the
languages to focus on - but this has nothing to do with what language is the
best. If you start your own company, or just hack for fun, go for Ruby and
OCaml.
> How long does it take to get a good enough understanding of Ruby to
> start writing programs?
> What books would you recommend for learning Ruby?
10 minutes if you have prior OO programming knowledge. You will not know
everything after 10 minutes, but if keep a reference book handy (Programming
Ruby, available online) or use the "ri" ruby interactive tool as reference,
you will be up to speed by then. Also use the "irb" inferior ruby to
interactively experiment with various expressions to see if something works
out before putting it into the code you are writing.
Read the Dr. Dobbs Journal article on Ruby by the authors of "Programming
Ruby". This will take the 10 minutes - then start programming.
http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0101/
Hal E. Fultons "The Ruby Way" would be the next book to read, but it is not
strictly a tutorial - more a guide through a large array of Ruby related
technologies.
See "documents" at http://www.ruby-lang.org
Mikkel
MikkelFJ
"Seth Kurtzberg" <se...@cql.com> wrote in message
news:20030309191...@cql.com...
> > The two best languages are IMHO Ruby, OCaml. Apart from the language
> > qualities, both these languages have easy interfacing with C which is
> > important for real software solutions.
>
> If you are of a language theoretical bent, throw Haskell into the mix as
well.
If this is the objective, there are a lot of interesting languages. I
carefully picked OCaml for its realworld usability. Very few languages /
implementations come close to OCaml in compiler / execution quality - and
those that do are expensive.
Mikkel
MikkelFJ
> ANSI C is a proper subset of C++, so not "to some degree", 100%.
I don't think so - You are allowed to be more sloppy with types in C than in
C++.
Mikkel
pj
> out .NET with Smallscript (S#, Smalltalk for .NET).
This intrigued me, and I went to
http://www.smallscript.net
but it is quite difficult to make out what is what.
Yet, I think you have to agree to a 100k pdf license
for anything from that site, and it appears to me
to say you promise to keep everything about the
language and so forth confidential. This puzzles me
a bit; what good is a language that you can't talk
about ? But I am not a lawyer, and I might be
completely misunderstanding it:
http://www.smallscript.net/Downloads/SmallScript-TP-LicenseAgreement.pdf
Tobias Peters
> ANSI C is a proper subset of C++, so not "to some degree", 100%.
Sorry for OT, but this is incorrect. Latest Stroustrup still has a section
on the incompatibilities. Think of compiling this with a c/c++ compiler:
int main(int virtual, char * protected[]) { return virtual; }
IIRC code that works in both languages but with different semantics
exists.
Your Statement would be true if you s/C++/Objective-C/. Maybe you think of
that?
To the OP: Maybe you're interested in the LotY (Language of the
Year, http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/loty/ ) project.
T
Seth Kurtzberg
With the original C specs, perhaps, but not with the ANSI C syntax. However
the common compilers are not necessarily fully compliant. Most have a flag
to accept only ANSI syntax.
>
> Mikkel
jeepcreep
Just to take you a little off subject for a moment:
I'm also a newby. I went to your site and installed Ruby (Windows version). On the comand line level it works just fine. Now to create a program. Therein lies my problem. At home I am running LINUX, so I don't expect a problem (I'll install the LINUX version and use #!). At work, though, I'm not that lucky. I am running on an XP platform. I can't use #! here so how do I define the directory where my .rb modules will be run from?
anonimous
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:42:56AM +0900, anonimous wrote:
>
>> How long does it take to get a good enough understanding of Ruby to
>> start writing programs?
>
> About a minute I'd say. :-)
>
>> What books would you recommend for learning Ruby?
>
> Well, there is an EXCELLENT tutorial to be found at:
>
> http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/0.3/
>
> It's written by a talented Canadian mathematecian of unparalleled
> humiliity. For instance, he is so humble that he would never take an
> opportunity like this to promote his own tutorial. ;-)
>
> Seriously, this tutorial does give you a fine introduction. And if you
> want more it does have a listing of good Ruby books.
Its a good tutorial for beginners that havn't programmed before, but I have
already learned java so I end up jumping over a lot of the stuff that looks
very similar to java. It seems the tutorial is missing some of the section
on GUI programming, I've never tried TK so It might be interesting but the
only sub chapter to gui programming is the one where the author explains
why he chose TK for the tutorial.
>
Seth Kurtzberg
like environment with a bash shell. Then you use #! just like a real
computer. :)
--
Wesley Moxam
double clicking a ruby file will execute it.
If you want to run ruby from the command line just type: ruby scriptname.rb
-- Wes
Daniel Carrera
> It seems the tutorial is missing some of the section on GUI
> programming,
More accurately, it is missing *all* of the section on GUI
programming :-)
The tutorial is under construction. For the time being you should
completely ignore the GUI part. I'm working on it.
anonimous
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:27:51AM +0900, anonimous wrote:
>
>> It seems the tutorial is missing some of the section on GUI
>> programming,
>
> More accurately, it is missing *all* of the section on GUI
> programming :-)
>
> The tutorial is under construction. For the time being you should
> completely ignore the GUI part. I'm working on it.
>
I'm interested in reading the section on Tk when its ready, I did a google
search for Ruby/TK tutorials and the only one I found had no screenshots
of what the GUI should look like :-p , I like having something to compare
my work to so please include screenshots in your TK tutorial if you havn't
already.
gabriele renzi
<dcar...@math.umd.edu> ha scritto::
>On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:27:51AM +0900, anonimous wrote:
>
>> It seems the tutorial is missing some of the section on GUI
>> programming,
>
>More accurately, it is missing *all* of the section on GUI
>programming :-)
>
>The tutorial is under construction. For the time being you should
>completely ignore the GUI part. I'm working on it.
didn't you wrote even
http://ruby-gnome.sourceforge.net/tutorial/book1.html ?[1]
should we consider it is obsolete or totally not working with current
gtk stuff?
If it's still valid.. would you send me some kind of source file
(sgml/rd/html/whatever) so that I could start an Italian translation?
[1] how many things you wrote?? it should be ~DOCarrera!
jeepcreep
THANX all! I got cygwin running. Two other questions though:
- when I click on the .rb module the command sceen blanks and disappears so I can't see the result; if I execute from the command line, I see the result - what gives?
- because ruby.exe is in the bin directory, I can only execute the .rb from there; in other words, I can only store the .rb in the same directory as ruby.exe; how do I get around this?
Wesley Moxam <wmo...@klickit.com> wrote:
> > Carrera wrote:> Althoug getting a job in
Daniel Carrera
> didn't you wrote even
> http://ruby-gnome.sourceforge.net/tutorial/book1.html ?[1]
>
> should we consider it is obsolete or totally not working with current
> gtk stuff?
Yes, but that tutorial covers Gtk1. Currently, Ruby-Gtk is moving to Gtk2
and Gnome2 bindings. Joshua Keith is maintaining the Gtk2 tutorial:
http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.net/tut/toc.htm
I'm sure that he'd love to see an Italian translation.
Would you also consider doing an Italian translation for the Ruby
tutorial:
http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/0.3/
Currently there are people working on translations for German (Robert
Gogolok), French (Laurent Sansone) and Spanish (me).
It's be awsome to get more translations.
Take care,
Austin Ziegler
>THANX all! I got cygwin running. Two other questions though:
>
> - when I click on the .rb module the command sceen blanks and
> disappears so I can't see the result; if I execute from the
> command line, I see the result - what gives?
This is normal Windows stuff. The command window is executed and
terminated automatically. You may be able to change the properties
for default launching to keep a window around even if it terminates
abnormally, but I personally don't like that so I don't use it.
Rather, I'll launch cmd.exe and then run my Ruby scripts that way.
> - because ruby.exe is in the bin directory, I can only execute the
> .rb from there; in other words, I can only store the .rb in the
> same directory as ruby.exe; how do I get around this?
You shouldn't need to. Check your environment variables and add the
Ruby path if necessary (add it here:)
Right click on My Computer
Properties
Advanced
Environment Variables
The path should include your Ruby path. Try running cmd.exe and
doing "SET PATH". You should see the Ruby path in there. Also, try
typing ruby -v ("ruby 1.6.8 (2002-12-24) [i586-mswin32]"). One other
thing is that the Pragmatic Programmers windows installer also does
a file association:
C:\> assoc .rb
.rb=rbFile
C:\> ftype rbFile
rbFile="c:\Apps\Ruby\bin\ruby.exe" "%1" %*
This means that you can run "script.rb" as:
C:\> script
-austin
anonimous
well I might even try a third Programming language, but I probably
shouldn't take on to much at one time. I've finished reading the
recommended tutorial and I think I know enough to start looking through the
Ruby api before I start trying to write programs as part of the learning
experience. I would like to say thanks to all who replied, you were a very
friendly group of people and you were very helpful, Thanks :-)
Kent R. Spillner
> I've finished reading the recommended tutorial and I think I know enough
> to start looking through the Ruby api before I start trying to write
> programs as part of the learning experience.
Don't wait until AFTER you've read the api to "start trying to write
programs."
Go ahead and start writing Ruby programs now; they're fun and easy.
-Kent
--
Kent R. Spillner
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
gabriele renzi
<dcar...@math.umd.edu> ha scritto::
>Would you also consider doing an Italian translation for the Ruby
>tutorial:
Already considered ,
just, don't wait for it. actually I'm out of time ^_^
but.. what is the source for it ? should I (or we) work on the html
pages?
Or there is some strange EBCDIC-encoded sgml original source file
somewhere ?
Daniel Carrera
> >Would you also consider doing an Italian translation for the Ruby
> >tutorial:
>
> Already considered ,
> just, don't wait for it. actually I'm out of time ^_^
>
> but.. what is the source for it ? should I (or we) work on the html
> pages?
>
> Or there is some strange EBCDIC-encoded sgml original source file
> somewhere ?
Well, when I begun doing it I didn't plan for translations. I wrote a
script that generates all the repetitive stuff for me. The 'input' has
the form:
<h1>Title</h1>
<p>Paragraph...</p>
Then the script adds the header, the footer and navigation links.
I'm attaching the "build" script, but I'm not sure how useful it would be.
Like I said, I didn't really plan it for general distribution. But it
should still be somewhat understandable.
Sascha Dördelmann
I've asked that in comp.lang.smalltalk.advocacy and got the following
answer from David Simmons. (SmallScript, S#, AOS, Agents Object System
are registered trademarks of David Simmons and/or SmallScript Corp.)
> That license was written for the original pre-release in 2001.
> There is nothing in the written materials or samples that you are limited to
> for the purposes of discussion or demonstration. The license and related
> materials will be revised when the next updated coinciding with the S#.NET
> tech-preview release is made available.
>
> -- Dave S. [www.smallscript.org]
Here's my own opinion:
SmallScript issues are discussed in the Smalltalk community quite
often. So I would not expect any problems with that part of the
licence.
Cheers
Sascha Dördelmann
Rumor
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:08:18AM +0900, gabriele renzi wrote:
>
> > didn't you wrote even
> > http://ruby-gnome.sourceforge.net/tutorial/book1.html ?[1]
> >
> > should we consider it is obsolete or totally not working with current
> > gtk stuff?
>
> Yes, but that tutorial covers Gtk1. Currently, Ruby-Gtk is moving to Gtk2
> and Gnome2 bindings. Joshua Keith is maintaining the Gtk2 tutorial:
>
> http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.net/tut/toc.htm
>
> I'm sure that he'd love to see an Italian translation.
>
> Would you also consider doing an Italian translation for the Ruby
> tutorial:
> http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/ruby/0.3/
>
> Currently there are people working on translations for German (Robert
> Gogolok), French (Laurent Sansone) and Spanish (me).
>
> It's be awsome to get more translations.
>
> Take care,
I just had to pipe up and give you kudos, Mr. Carrera.
Your tutorial is great. Most of the examples have a cool/interesting
factor to them. All in all, clearly written and a breath of fresh air
from the many "hello world, 50 times over" tuts ive come across when
browsing a programming language.
I think i hear the crowd chanting "book! book! book!"
Paul Duncan
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
> > ANSI C is a proper subset of C++, so not "to some degree", 100%.
>
> Sorry for OT, but this is incorrect. Latest Stroustrup still has a
> section on the incompatibilities. Think of compiling this with a c/c++
> compiler:
>
> int main(int virtual, char * protected[]) { return virtual; }
There's more where that comes from:
int a, b, c;
a = b //* fun! */ c;
and of course, then there's this:
void foo();
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
foo(argc, argv);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
void foo(int c, char **v) {
printf("%d\n", c);
}
Both the above examples are valid ANSI C, but they are _not_ valid C++.
> IIRC code that works in both languages but with different semantics
> exists.
>
> Your Statement would be true if you s/C++/Objective-C/. Maybe you
> think of that?
>
>
> To the OP: Maybe you're interested in the LotY (Language of the
> Year, http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/loty/ ) project.
>
> T
>
--
Paul Duncan <pa...@pablotron.org> pabs in #gah (OPN IRC)
http://www.pablotron.org/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562
Michael Bruschkewitz
carefully.
Now I too have to put my mustard on it.
In article <b4gklc$o21$1...@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net>,
n.t...@roadrunner.nf.net says...
> I have abour 3 or 4 years experience with Linux, and about 2 years
> experience with Java, recently though I decided to quit learning Java
... Ups. After 2 years experience you're still learning Java? I'll drop
any ideas to learn Java some day immediately. ;)
Seriously. I don't think the number of languages you know is really
important. If I would be in need to hire some staff the languages would
be one of the last issues in my check list. Much more important would be
the list of reference projects, and the diversity of problems you've
solved. Of course, somebody has said one should learn at least one new
language per year. This is a good hint if you find enough time to do
that. So, Ruby is really not the worst suggestion for this year.
But, if you have to decide to learn Ruby _or_ C++, C++ will have much
more impact on your skill-sheet because you will find much more projects
offered for C++ then for Ruby. Unfortunately, C++ will also need much
more time until you _really_ know it, so, for an experienced project
manager 1 year experience in C++ will be nothing, whilst 1 year
experience in Ruby backed by other experiences will be much more.
(Because everybody who once started Visual-C++ adds C++ to its skills.)
Additionally, Ruby gives the possibility to learn something about Tk,
which is probably more known to project managers (or hiring stuff),
also, it has modules for database-access, which helps to extend your
knowledge of SQL, and so on.
Also, Ruby is available on many OS's, so you'll have a powerful
_scripting_ language in your portfolio, which is important for
administrative tasks.
This is my hint: Learn Ruby, use it to learn more - API's, OS's, do not
bother too much for the details. It will be the details you don't need
in your next project.
Regards,
Michael B.
Michael Shigorin
> Seriously. I don't think the number of languages you know is
> really important.
It's just kind of "the number of languages you program, the times
you are the programmer"? :-)
(resistance on r-t seems to go zero even though temperature raises :)
--
---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mi...@altlinux.ru>
------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/