[#35036] Intentional Programming — "John" <nojgoalbyspam@...>

Hi all

17 messages 2002/03/01

[#35112] RDoc question — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I have a question about RDoc. I would like to reference an external

17 messages 2002/03/02

[#35162] string to array and back — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

I am needing to convert strings to arrays of bytes and back. I see pack and

19 messages 2002/03/03

[#35364] file reading impossibly slow? — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

So I'm doing this benchmark to work with my set program. Part of the problem is

18 messages 2002/03/07

[#35429] Interesting link on static/dynamic typing... — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

...relevant to Ruby compared to other languages discussion:

25 messages 2002/03/08
[#35441] Re: Interesting link on static/dynamic typing... — Paul Brannan <paul@...> 2002/03/08

On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 05:34:43PM +0900, Robert Feldt wrote:

[#35460] Spam, ruby-talk, and me — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

14 messages 2002/03/08

[#35537] Confusion — David Corbin <dcorbin@...>

The following is from my debugging through xmlc.rb

16 messages 2002/03/10

[#35579] RE: WIN32OLE and LDAP — "Morris, Chris" <chris.morris@...>

> The new version 0.4.2 of Win32OLE has WIN32OLE.bind method.

16 messages 2002/03/11

[#35652] Method type 'abstract' — Peter Hickman <peter@...>

The one thing I miss in Ruby is the abstract class method to go along

15 messages 2002/03/12

[#35653] Some potential RCRs — "Bob Alexander" <bobalex@...>

Here are a few thing I am considering submitting as RCRs. I'm looking =

50 messages 2002/03/12
[#35672] Re: Some potential RCRs — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2002/03/12

Hi,

[#35683] Re: Some potential RCRs — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...> 2002/03/12

On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 03:58:01AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#35697] Re: Some potential RCRs — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2002/03/13

Hello --

[#35694] rpkg 0.3 — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>

14 messages 2002/03/13
[#35699] RE: [ANN] rpkg 0.3 — <james@...> 2002/03/13

>

[#35787] testunit - setup -> set_up ? — "Morris, Chris" <chris.morris@...>

I'm just starting to use testunit instead of rubyunit ... I noticed with an

21 messages 2002/03/13
[#35793] RE: testunit - setup -> set_up ? — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2002/03/13

Morris, Chris [mailto:chris.morris@snelling.com] wrote:

[#35796] Re: testunit - setup -> set_up ? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/03/13

"Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:

[#35797] RE: testunit - setup -> set_up ? — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2002/03/13

dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com] wrote:

[#35898] camelCase and underscore_style — "Morris, Chris" <chris.morris@...>

First, a question. If underscore_style is the Ruby norm for methods and the

20 messages 2002/03/15
[#35924] Re: camelCase and underscore_style — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2002/03/15

Phil Tomson wrote:

[#35930] RE: camelCase and underscore_style — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2002/03/16

Guy N. Hurst [mailto:gnhurst@hurstlinks.com] wrote:

[#35989] ANN: Locana GUI and GUI Builder version 0.81 — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I am pleased to announce release 0.81 of Locana. Locana is a GUI

16 messages 2002/03/16

[#35992] XPath — Michael Schuerig <schuerig@...>

27 messages 2002/03/16

[#36034] Mini Rant: Indenting — Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@...>

Why is it that I see *so* much code like:

14 messages 2002/03/17

[#36049] web templating for static sites? — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>

I'm using the Template Toolkit for generating static web sites and I

42 messages 2002/03/17
[#36426] web standars (was: web templating for static sites?) — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2002/03/20

Albert Wagner wrote:

[#36052] Xml Serialization for Ruby — "Chris Morris" <chrismo@...>

=Xml Serialization for Ruby

20 messages 2002/03/17
[#36059] Re: [ANN] Xml Serialization for Ruby — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...> 2002/03/17

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:20:56AM +0900, Chris Morris wrote:

[#36067] eval/Module question — David Corbin <dcorbin@...>

If I have a String src that is similar to the following:

13 messages 2002/03/18

[#36157] Development of Windows version of Ruby — ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)

Now that we've dumped the cygwin requirement for the Windows version of

63 messages 2002/03/18
[#36330] Re: Development of Windows version of Ruby — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> 2002/03/19

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:05:27 GMT, "Albert L. Wagner" <alwagner@uark.edu> wrote:

[#36431] Re: Development of Windows version of Ruby — Dennis Newbold <dennisn@...> 2002/03/20

[#36458] Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson) 2002/03/21

Dennis Newbold <dennisn@pe.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.3.96.1020320113603.22242B-100000@shell2>...

[#36482] RE: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — "Christian Boos" <cboos@...> 2002/03/21

Some thoughts on the 2 first Windows issues, plus a 4th one...

[#36496] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/03/21

"Christian Boos" <cboos@bct-technology.com> writes:

[#36510] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — nobu.nokada@... 2002/03/21

Hi,

[#36514] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/03/21

nobu.nokada@softhome.net writes:

[#36518] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — nobu.nokada@... 2002/03/21

Hi,

[#36211] dots in Dir.entries — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Hi,

22 messages 2002/03/19

[#36231] style choice — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

A style question for the community ... which of the following do you prefer, and

18 messages 2002/03/19

[#36345] ANN: REXML 2.0 — Sean Russell <ser@...>

I have a feeling there will only be three major revisions of REXML. Version

19 messages 2002/03/20

[#36610] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:11:55 GMT, Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> wrote:

16 messages 2002/03/22

[#36645] Ruby for Mac OS 10.1 — Jim Freeze <jim@...>

Hi:

28 messages 2002/03/23

[#36768] Re: Difference between 'do' and 'begin' — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

In <slrna9ulvi.f2h.mwg@fluffy.isd.dp.ua> Wladimir Mutel <mwg@fluffy.isd.dp.ua> writes:

23 messages 2002/03/26
[#36783] RE: Difference between 'do' and 'begin' — <james@...> 2002/03/26

[#36792] Re: Difference between 'do' and 'begin' — Kent Dahl <kentda@...> 2002/03/26

james@rubyxml.com wrote:

[#36808] Error calling Tk in a loop — <james@...>

I'm trying to write some code that pops up a Tk window when for certain

15 messages 2002/03/26

[#36841] RE: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — "Andres Hidalgo" <sol123@...>

I believe that Ruby has a place in windows (Office), I happened to have

14 messages 2002/03/27

[#36863] Hash.new(Hash.new) doesn't use Hash.new as default value — "Jonas Delfs" <jonas@...>

Hi -

18 messages 2002/03/27

[#37080] Why isn't Math object-oriented? — Bil Kleb <W.L.Kleb@...>

So I'm reading along in the Pixaxe book (yet again), and I am told

15 messages 2002/03/30

[#37121] String#begins?(s) — timsuth@... (Tim Sutherland)

class String

24 messages 2002/03/31

Re: Intentional Programming

From: "John" <nojgoalbyspam@...>
Date: 2002-03-08 20:52:50 UTC
List: ruby-talk #35483
This is taking this even more off topic but I would say that I personally
despise software patents.  Microsoft is obviously not the only company
guilty of creating them.  I remember some time ago seeing some really cool
technology at Xerox Parc that was patented.  Very few of those "ideas" have
made it into the mainstream because of it.  So who does it benefit?  The
only benefit I can see is the portfolio of patents that companies barter
with.

John.

"Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C88E85A.9080809@earthlink.net...
> John wrote:
> > ..
> > I agree with you on patents.  I know why they did it but all it does is
> > restrict progress in the field.  I am not sure what it covers as I have
not
> > read them yet.  There are links to them on my website.
> >
> ...
> Actually, it's a much worse situation than just the listed patents
> indicate.  They don't say anything about the patents that they have
> applied for, but which are still in process.  And the G.D. patent office
> is so *** that they would probably allow you to patent "A method for
> combining the values from two addresses in computer memory to give a
> logically determined value, possibly determined by either a half-adder
> or a stocastic process, and possibly exogenously determined."  They
> wouldn't understand it, so they'd just grant it.  Anyone with a good
> lawyer and a lot of money could successfully challenge it, of course, so
> they wouldn't enforce it against them.
>
> This isn't just "a religous issue".  This is cutting to the bone of
> people without a lot of money being allowed to develop anything!  It's
> getting to the point where the only way to release something is either
> to live in a country without software patents, or to release it
anonymously.
>
>
>
>


In This Thread

Prev Next