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

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Chad Perrin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> - 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.

IOW: BSD users are technologically savvy, correct? Not that I
misunderstand what you wanted to say.

>>
>> 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. =A0If 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.

Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

Any project has manpower constraints, and the easier a Beginning Ruby
package is to maintain, the more time can be spent on making it an
excellent experience for newcomers. And I value the latter part higher
than any sort of "purity" native packages can provide.


>> - 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. =A0Look 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.

And Chrom[e|ium]'s market share comes mostly at the expense of Firefox.

Native look and feel is important simply because that's what a user is
already used to, and knows how to navigate.

> That's not to say that GTK is pretty. =A0It's not. =A0I think something m=
ore
> simple and elegant, without big ugly gray buttons and the like, would be
> nicer. =A0Still, I don't know that blending in with the default widget se=
t
> of the OS is as important as people seem to think, especially for
> something like this.

And we can argue this until the cows come home. I'm not hell bent on
providing native look and feel, but it's a very nice bonus to have.

Though, it'd be a secondary concern, I think. Bells and whistles are
nice, but not necessarily required.

>> - 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. =A0I
> hadn't even thought of that until you brought it up.

The question is if it would be an issue in practicality. MS Word takes
ages to load up, too (at least the first view times, before Windows'
caching mechanisms kick in), and if Ruby can run in the background
perpetually, waiting for some sort of input, start up and seeing
results of Ruby scripts becomes much of a non-issue.

> I haven't tried yet; can interactive_editor be made to work on MS
> Windows? =A0If so, I don't think we need to focus on picking an editor th=
at
> can execute code for first-timers. =A0Keep it simple; use the default
> editor for the platform, if you can get away with it.

Ideally, yes. And I have no idea about interactive_editor, nor am I
good enough to hack any internals of it, if necessary, however.

> If you're going to bundle an editor with it, you might as well focus on
> creating a complete IDE install.

Wouldn't that go against the goals of simplicity, avoiding to overload
a beginner? Would be a fully fledged IDE be necessary to learn Ruby?

>> * 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. =A0I 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. =A0Not
> auto-correcting what it thinks are typos is a *huge* concern, too.

That'd depend on the tutorials provided. But I think that syntax
highlighting makes easier to see what's what, than the monospaced
gibberish that would be

WORK_ITEM_TAGS.each do |wit|
  puts "Tagged #{wit}:"
  puts make_list items, wit
  puts ""
end

In the end, though:
The tutorials provided by a Beginning Ruby package as well as that one
get a running Ruby in 30 minutes or your money back are far more
important than how pretty or how advanced the editor is.

--=20
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.