From: Chad Perrin Date: 2011-04-15T01:21:41+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby for beginners (was: Re: Hello) --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've deleted any context to which I didn't feel a need to respond; it stands on its own. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:26:25PM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote: >=20 > I propose the following premises: >=20 > - Linux users (For the sake of argument, I think we can lump in the BSD > Unix flavours with the Linux users) can be expected to be more > technologically savvy than the "average" computer user, simply because > they have to take the step of installing anotehr operating system, and > it is a good idea for most Linux flavours and users to use the Linux > distribution's package management system to install and maintain > software anyway. This group would profit the most from a > Ruby/programming primer, I think I think this actually applies *more* to BSD Unix users than Linux-based system users, on average. >=20 > - Windows doesn't ship with a decent* editor, nor a package management > system. A merely passable editor is probably enough to get people started. I comment more on editors later on. >=20 > To cover both Windows and Mac users with one stroke, some sort of > portability of the tools a "Beginning Ruby" package includes is a > necessity, simply to make the burden on maintaining such a package > easier. This is a good point. If we're just talking about something that only runs on MacOS X and MS Windows, maybe JRuby isn't as bad a choice as I had originally thought -- because of this point. >=20 > Unfortunately, there's no easy download for SciTE for the Mac OS X > platform, and the Scintilla editor component uses GTK+, which means an > additional dependency for one single operating system, for a 2MB > editor. ;) Bundling an editor with the Ruby install suffers some of the same problems as bundling a Java runtime with it, pretty much regardless of the editor. >=20 > - Java-based editors based on the SWT toolkit don't look out of place > (SciTE does). Redcar is based off of the SWT toolkit, but requires a > lot of configuration to make it execute Ruby code from what I've > looked at so far (though, it does look nice). I think this "look and feel of the OS" thing is heavily, wildly overstated much of the time. Look at the Chromium browser -- it has taken the approach of looking kinda out-of-place on *every* operating system, and it ended up being about the best looking of all the major browsers. That's not to say that GTK is pretty. It's not. I think something more simple and elegant, without big ugly gray buttons and the like, would be nicer. Still, I don't know that blending in with the default widget set of the OS is as important as people seem to think, especially for something like this. >=20 > - Start up time for Java applications can be an issue, at least in > theory. It certainly can for people who are writing little beginner scripts. They'll think Ruby is even slower on MS Windows than it actually is. I hadn't even thought of that until you brought it up. >=20 > _Beginning Ruby editor requirements:_ >=20 > - Easy to use, with no clutter in the UI, and thus allowing the user to > focus on Getting Stuff Done, and get a success fast. > - Able to run Ruby from within the editor, so that the user can focus > on Ruby, and Ruby alone. The CLI on Windows is more of an advanced > topic. I haven't tried yet; can interactive_editor be made to work on MS Windows? If so, I don't think we need to focus on picking an editor that can execute code for first-timers. Keep it simple; use the default editor for the platform, if you can get away with it. If you're going to bundle an editor with it, you might as well focus on creating a complete IDE install. Don't misunderstand me -- I think Notepad is crap. I don't know that it doesn't cover the basic needs of a beginner's bundle, though. Once the nuby (portmanteau of Ruby and newbie?) gets experienced enough to want a different editor, he or she can probably install SciTE, TextMate, whatever. >=20 > In a nutshell: > The problem is sourcing a decent-ish editor, while being as > vendor-neutral as humanly possibly. It seems to me that using the native default editor for the system is probably the easy solution, here. >=20 > * decent meaning "at least syntax highlighting". I don't think syntax highlighting is really a major concern here, unless you're going to bundle tutorials that refer to the colors to point out "parts of speech" in Ruby. I think more important concerns are things like whether it can handle all three major newline types (Mac, Unix, Windows) and whether it uses a monospace font by default. Not auto-correcting what it thinks are typos is a *huge* concern, too. Someone stop me if I'm straying into bikeshed painting land. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk2nG/MACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUvTgCgyh1CSj7wGOSBlPcbT0oFqRhl czoAoLZUvEGuUrtgYu6vhzDmyCYpgGeD =9y33 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua--