From: Morton Goldberg Date: 2007-06-27T10:42:36+09:00 Subject: Re: Probably an FAQ, but... On Jun 26, 2007, at 5:40 PM, David Rush wrote: > On Jun 26, 11:51 am, Morton Goldberg wrote: >> On Jun 26, 2007, at 5:00 AM, David Rush wrote: >>> I CAN'T FIND A BLOODY ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE LANGUAGE DEFINITION >>> >>> I have to be missing something obvious. What am I missing? >> >> The pickaxe book. > > I have downloaded the free version. It is quite good, but it lacks a > certain technical rigor. Or perhaps it is just organized in a way > which is opaque to someone who is used to the more traditionally > organized specifications. The pickaxe book is basically organized into a tutorial front-end and a reference back-end. The reference portion is about as good as you can get in English. The free version is quite out of date. If you're serious about Ruby, buy the 2nd edition bundle (hard copy book plus PDF). Buying the PDF gets you free updates to each new printing until the 3rd edition comes out. > I mean chatty is OK if you want to motivate > someone, but when you need accurate information with a minimum of > search overhead, I prefer a more traditional format. While coding, it very easy to search the PDF for details on syntax or semantics. I consult my copy on an almost daily basis. > It actually appears to me that the state of Ruby from a technical > specification POV is really quite immature. I mean, is there even a > BNF for the grammar? How about railroad diagrams? There are those who want to be language lawyers and those who enjoy using powerful and elegant tools to get computers to do interesting things[*]. Which are you? If you are one of the former, I can only suggest you find another programming language. Good luck. Regards, Morton [*] The set may well have a non-void intersection, but I doubt there are any dedicated Ruby programmers there.