From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-12-09T07:54:35+09:00
Subject: Re: The Ruby Way

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Campbell" <michael_s_campbell@yahoo.com>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: The Ruby Way


> > I'm just getting started on Ruby.  Would you recommend I wait a while
> > before reading "The Ruby Way"?
>
> I wouldn't.  It is "advanced" in that it covers some more advanced stuff,
but it
> has enough pre-cursor stuff in there too to lead you too it.  It's only
fault
> (IMO) is that it is a bit broad; it's not really for neophyte programmers,
but
> nor seasoned ones either (I mean, do we really need a paragraph on
> String#reverse?).

I'll address that since you brought it up.

The book certainly has its share of design flaws and
outright errors (which are my responsibility and not
any collaborators').

Your rhetorical question about #reverse is a point
well taken, and one to which I gave many hours of
thought.

What I decided was:
1. Everything is obvious to somebody.
2. Nothing is obvious to everybody.
3. I'm an increasingly poor judge about how the
Ruby neophyte thinks anyway.
4. Therefore, I'll err on the side of completeness.

I.e., better too much information than not enough.

There is an infinity of things you won't find in
this book; and many of them cause people to say,
"Why wasn't THIS included?" But while I couldn't
cover all of the intermediate or advanced
programming problems in the universe, I felt I
could cover all the trivial ones. And so I did.

Just a little justification after the fact. :)

Cheers,
Hal