Re: getting the most out of Ruby

are you talking about this book??
http://www.amazon.com/Metaprogramming-Ruby-Program-Like-Pros/dp/1934356476

Eliezer

On 06/20/2013 12:40 AM, Stu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, robin wood <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Brandon W. wrote in post #1112804:
>  > Blocks, Lambdas, Closures, Metaprogramming, and Enumerables are the huge
>  > topics. Master them and you'll see a huge difference.
>
> Got any resources you used to help get your head around all these?
>
> I felt that the book "Meta-Programming Ruby" was very eye opening. It
> explains the object model in the first 100 pages. I recommend it based
> on what you've said. I rarely push books but that one seems to be
> written by someone who thought through the pedagogical approach of Ruby
> paradigm with everyone coming from different programming backgrounds.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Robert Klemme
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>     On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Robert Klemme
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>         On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Brandon Weaver
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             The biggest jumping point for me is when I stopped trying to
>             program Ruby like C# and started programming Ruby like Ruby.
>
>         :-)
>
>             Coming from C land you have tendencies towards a lot of
>             imperative techniques, and Ruby is not solely imperative.
>             Learning the functional side of Ruby is essential to
>             graduate into advanced topics.
>
>         I'd be careful labeling Ruby as "functional".  The only
>         "functional" about Ruby is that with lambda you can have
>         anonymous functions which you can pass around.  The core feature
>         of funct
>
>
>     Sorry, somehow I hit the wrong button and GMail just sent off the
>     email.  What I wanted to say:
>
>     I'd be careful labeling Ruby as "functional".  The only "functional"
>     about Ruby is that with lambda you can have anonymous functions
>     which you can pass around and create higher order functions.  The
>     core feature of functional programming for me was always functions
>     without side effects.  And that is not part of Ruby.  Of course, you
>     _can_ code lambdas without side effects - but the language does not
>     enforce this.
>
>     Kind regards
>
>     robert
>
>
> I agree with you. I am very careful with when I write statements like
> that hence I said "style" as in functional style. I am very used to That
> lambda is important though. It is essentially the primitive of
> functional programming( i.e. everything can be build from combination of
> lambdas) though it would be not very efficient and is something which
> may be explained from a pure "theoretical language" it's neat to know.
> Some people have ported base scheme implementations to ruby( as those
> guys port that language to everything) with just the lambda (once again
> neat but not really useful)... bus scheme I believe is one which is the
> main 7( or 9) original lisp primitives in 40 lines of code.
>
> Though from an analytical point of view it's refreshing when the
> language creator explains his motivations when creating ruby:
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/179642
> http://www.slideshare.net/yukihiro_matz/how-emacs-changed-my-life
>
> There are some others besides lambda and eval in recent ruby releases
> such as both callcc and curry. But lambda the ultimate for those who are
> into language creation. I recall a higher order cons enumerators. But it
> wasn't a pure cons (each_cons maybe). If we had cons we could create our
> own literals and further car/cdr would simply be aliases to first and
> *rest of the list which for the most part is basically an array with
> whitespace instead of commas for delimitation.
>
> ~Stu
>