[#1215] Tk widget demo; English Tk docs?; Java 1.2 Swing — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Hi,
[#1218] Trivial FAQ bug — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1229] A vote for old behavior — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1232] Any FAQ requests, updates, ... — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1233] Singleton classes — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1263] Draft of the updated Ruby FAQ — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1307] Ruby/GTK 0.23 released — Hiroshi IGARASHI <igarashi@...>
Hi all,
From: Hiroshi IGARASHI <igarashi@ueda.info.waseda.ac.jp>
From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 09:37:27PM -0500, Yasushi Shoji wrote:
[#1322] FAQ: Ruby acronyms — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
In the spirit of TABWTDI (there are better ways to do it), I'd like to
[#1341] Vim syntax file — Mirko Nasato <mirko.nasato@...>
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 05:44:39PM +0100, Mirko Nasato wrote:
[#1354] Say hi (bis) — Pixel <pixel_@...>
hi all,
[#1355] nice sample for functional stuff — Pixel <pixel_@...>
what about having map in standard (and map_index too)?
[#1373] Ruby Language Reference Manual--Glossary — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
I was going to print the Ruby Language Reference Manual when I noticed that
[#1376] Re: Scripting versus programming — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
Conrad writes:
[#1379] Re: Yield — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
>From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net>
[#1384] Re: Say Hi — mengx@...
My suggestion was to try to find a more comfortable method name (to me, and
[#1392] Re: Some Questions - Parameterised Types / Invariants — Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
>1. Parameterised Types / Template Classes
[#1398] Bignum aset — Andrew Hunt <Andy@...>
[#1488] Discussion happens on news.groups — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
[#1508] Ruby/GTK and the mainloop — Ian Main <imain@...>
Hello Ian,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 02:56:10AM -0500, Yasushi Shoji wrote:
[#1516] Ruby: PLEASE use comp.lang.misc for all Ruby programming/technical questions/discussions!!!! — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
((FYI: This was sent to the Ruby mail list.))
From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@jump.net>
[#1528] ruby <=> python — Quinn Dunkan <quinn@...>
Hello! I'm new to ruby-talk, and mostly new to ruby. I'm making a document
[#1551] Ruby thread scheduling buglet — Ian Main <imain@...>
[#1569] Re: Ruby: constructors, new and initialise — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1591] Certain char's not recognized by "." in regex? — Wes Nakamura <wknaka@...>
[#1592] Race condition in Singleton — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[ruby-talk:01526] Re: RFD: comp.lang.ruby
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to news.groups as well.
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> Jim Riley <jimrtex@pipeline.com> writes:
>
> > Probably around 5 messages/day will get you into the upper half of
> > busiest comp.* groups. You can go much lower and have a meaningful
> > exchange of information.
>
> Hm. That's not really been my experience in comp.*, except for moderated
> groups. I agree that 10 messages a day even may be a touch high, although
> I also think that newsgroups tend to drop a bit in traffic after the
> initial enthusiasm so 10 a day is probably a good target to aim at at
> first so that when the traffic drops it's still viable. But if you go
> much lower than 5 messages a day in most comp.* groups, I think you risk
> losing any feeling of coherence to the discussion.
>
> There are certainly exceptions, but I don't think planning for only a
> message or two a day or so in the average unmoderated discussion group,
> even on technical topics, is adviseable.
I tallied the number of messages per day in February that I had
archived from the English language ruby-talk mailing list. I believe
them to be accurate, but please don't treat them as definitive:
2000 Feb 1: 2
2000 Feb 2: 2
2000 Feb 3: 1
2000 Feb 5: 5
2000 Feb 6: 5
2000 Feb 8: 2
2000 Feb 9: 7
2000 Feb 10: 13
2000 Feb 11: 6
2000 Feb 12: 9
2000 Feb 13: 10
2000 Feb 14: 12
2000 Feb 15: 43
2000 Feb 16: 43
2000 Feb 17: 16
2000 Feb 18: 21
2000 Feb 19: 14
The flurry on the 15/16 was to some extent a discussion of
comp.lang.ruby, but even discounting half of those messages, there is
certainly some volume there.
Regards
Dave