[#17198] enhancing Ruby error messages for out of the bound constant Fixnum? — Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@...>

Hi,

11 messages 2001/07/03

[#17206] /* */ comments — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

43 messages 2001/07/04
[#17207] Re: /* */ comments — Stephen White <spwhite@...> 2001/07/04

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#17251] Re: /* */ comments — Sean Chittenden <sean-ruby-talk@...> 2001/07/04

> Over on http://www.rubygarden.org, dv posted a patch to parse.y that

[#17268] Re: /* */ comments — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/07/05

Hi,

[#17212] Ruby 1.6.4 Win32 .exe installer question — A Bull in the China Shop of Life <feoh@...>

Folks;

11 messages 2001/07/04

[#17225] Re: /* */ comments — Arnaud Meuret <ameuret@...4you.com>

|From: Mark Slagell [mailto:ms@iastate.edu]

17 messages 2001/07/04

[#17240] Ruby Mascot/logo — "Kevin Powick" <kpowick@...>

Hi there.

14 messages 2001/07/04

[#17281] Inheritance — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...>

15 messages 2001/07/05
[#17282] Re: Inheritance — ts <decoux@...> 2001/07/05

>>>>> "A" == Aleksei Guzev <aleksei.guzev@bigfoot.com> writes:

[#17348] Adding a method to a class at the top-level — Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@...>

Comrades,

14 messages 2001/07/05

[#17482] Aliases for class methods — "HarryO" <harryo@...>

Say I wanted to write my own version of File#open that adds some

23 messages 2001/07/08

[#17511] Ruby on Slashdot — jweirich@...

Ruby is currently mentioned on Slashdot. I posted some references.

29 messages 2001/07/08
[#17512] Re: Ruby on Slashdot — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2001/07/08

Interesting...

[#17518] Re: Ruby on Slashdot — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/07/09

Hi,

[#17519] Re: Ruby on Slashdot — "James (ruby-talk)" <ruby@...> 2001/07/09

> |I thought about that too; what about Ruby being a standard?

[#17525] Re: Ruby on Slashdot — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/07/09

Hi,

[#17536] Re: Ruby on Slashdot — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2001/07/09

Hello --

[#17572] Re: Constants and Variables — "HarryO" <harryo@...>

> If you want objects that don't change, try Object#freeze,

25 messages 2001/07/10

[#17732] Re: Array#sort! returns nil when array empty — hfulton@...

> Array#sort! returns nil if the array is empty, whereas ri

32 messages 2001/07/12
[#17736] Re: Array#sort! returns nil when array empty — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/07/12

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 hfulton@pop-server.austin.rr.com wrote:

[#17739] Re: Array#sort! returns nil when array empty — ts <decoux@...> 2001/07/12

>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:

[#17746] Re: Array#sort! returns nil when array empty — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2001/07/12

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, ts wrote:

[#17747] What is Array#- ? — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/07/12

While following the Array thread, I noticed the minus

[#17752] Re: What is Array#- ? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2001/07/12

Jim Freeze <jim@freeze.org> writes:

[#17753] Re: What is Array#- ? — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/07/12

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#17833] Extending objects — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...>

16 messages 2001/07/14
[#17834] Ruby-newbie seeks help with Rubywin starting IRB — "Euan Mee" <lucid@...> 2001/07/14

Once I fire up Rubywin, and then invoke _R_uby _I_rb from the

[#17839] Re: Ruby-newbie seeks help with Rubywin starting IRB — A Bull in the China Shop of Life <feoh@...> 2001/07/14

At 07:05 PM 7/14/01 +0900, Euan Mee spewed forth:

[#17859] Re: Creating methods on the fly — "HarryO" <harryo@...>

I

18 messages 2001/07/15

[#17925] Movement in scripting language communities to integrate XML-RPC — gsemones@... (Guerry Semones)

Greetings,

20 messages 2001/07/16
[#17934] Re: Movement in scripting language communities to integrate XML-RPC — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2001/07/16

"out of the box" by including

[#18018] Broadcasting data — "HarryO" <harryo@...>

Does someone have an example of broadcasting data around a network using

12 messages 2001/07/18

[#18023] [ANN] libxslt Rubified! — Wai-Sun Chia <waisun.chia@...>

Hello,

16 messages 2001/07/18
[#18024] Re: [ANN] libxslt Rubified! — TAKAHASHI Masayoshi <maki@...> 2001/07/18

Wai-Sun Chia <waisun.chia@compaq.com> wrote:

[#18100] Looking for Ruby programming exercises — Wayne Vucenic <wvucenic@...> 2001/07/19

I've been learning Ruby, mostly with the Pickaxe book, and it's going

[#18188] Newbie. Sinking fast. Please help. — Matt <matt@...>

I bought Programming Ruby a number of months back and finally have an opportunity to try out Ruby. However, I can't get it to build. Actually, that's not quite accurate. It builds fine. It won't pass 'make test'.

12 messages 2001/07/20

[#18193] Re: 99 bottles of beer — "Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@...>

18 messages 2001/07/20
[#18204] Re: 99 bottles of beer — Glen Starchman <glen@...> 2001/07/20

99.downto(0){|x|w=" on the wall";u="#{x!=0?eval(x.to_s):'no more'}

[#18306] Ruby as opposed to Python? — "Mark Nenadov" <mnenadov@...>

Hello. I have toyed with the idea of trying Ruby out for some time now.

118 messages 2001/07/22
[#18759] Re: Ruby as opposed to Python? — Paul Prescod <paulp@...> 2001/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#18774] Re: Ruby as opposed to Python? — "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@...> 2001/07/30

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:58:22AM +0900, Paul Prescod wrote:

[#18393] Trouble Using FXRuby on cygwin/Windows NT — rgilbert1@... (Robbie Gilbert)

Hi,

10 messages 2001/07/23

[#18566] Which database should I use? — Urban Hafner <the-master-of-bass@...>

Hello everybody,

17 messages 2001/07/26
[#18575] Re: Which database should I use? — Urban Hafner <the-master-of-bass@...> 2001/07/26

[#18582] Re: Which database should I use? — Michael Neumann <neumann@...> 2001/07/26

Urban Hafner wrote:

[ruby-talk:18363] Re: Ruby, Python and Objects philosophy

From: "MikkelFJ" <mikkelj-anti-spam@...1.dknet.dk>
Date: 2001-07-23 17:46:58 UTC
List: ruby-talk #18363
"Joe Graham" <joe@aiobjects.com> wrote in message
news:WyP67.10357$4v6.889723@e420r-atl3.usenetserver.com...
> Why Objects?

That was a darn long text - and I must admit I didn't carefully read
everything. But to answer you primary concerns:

Keyword: less bugs.

There is a HUGE difference between object API's - that is, the reusability
issue.
It is difficult to design a general purpose object model. You need to
anticipate, test strange cases etc. I'd say 10 times more development than
an object model "just for my purpose".
Sometimes these object models pays off, sometimes they don't.
With Ruby - code reuse has been a lot simpler though. I have been wishing
for something like mixins for a long time.

So the next issue: why objects "just for my purpose"?
It reduces the number of bugs in the system.

I takes 14 days to learn C++, and these days 1 day to learn Ruby. But it
still takes at least a year to create good object models, although Ruby
makes a lot of choices simpler, reducing the learning curve.
But the answer is, that IF you have the skills, object models let you hide
detail levels. You are factoring the dependecies in the system, and often
lets you focus either on the whole subsystem, or the absolute detail level.
In structured programming, you often get entangled in too many dependencies,
even with the best intentions.

Bad object models are bad. But they are difficult to implement. You spent
time fighting problems. It is, on the other hand, not difficult to implement
hopelessly unstructured structured code.

Object models where you do not change object relationsships whenever
appropriate, are usually very bad. In object models you need to prepare for
changes in the model as well. You can't write the model once, and then just
enhance through derivation. This is "The waterfall" model once again.

Iterative design is more imporant than most other design concepts.
I'm not 100% for object modelling any more. But as it is, it is one of the
better approaches we have.
What I primarily do not like, is that everything derives from something
specific. This idea has long been dropped in the biological evolutionary
theories.
And here mixins is a step in the right direction. Objects should reflect
behaviour, not necessarily inheritance.
Ruby is so very good at integrating behaviour from existing code base that
it more looks like a DNA swapping bacteria than an OO language.


Mikkel


In This Thread

Prev Next