Re: Ruby for beginners (was: Re: Hello)

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 ]