Forum: Ruby New presentation on Ruby

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 02:23
(Received via mailing list)
Hi all,

I made a presentation covering the different facets of Ruby :
- the scripting facet
- the dynamic typing facet
- the object-oriented facet
- the functional facet
- the reflective facet
- the DSL facet

Code snippets and comparison with other languages (Java, Python, PHP)
illustrate these facets.

I hope that some of you will find it interesting and/or useful.
Your comments are welcome.

You can find it at http://selfreflexion.free.fr/?p=4

Chauk-Mean.
Phillip G. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 02:37
(Received via mailing list)
Chauk-Mean P wrote:
> Code snippets and comparison with other languages (Java, Python, PHP)
> illustrate these facets.
>
> I hope that some of you will find it interesting and/or useful.

I can't say much about the content (yet), but about the presentation:
Comic Sans (whatever it is called), together with the playful
drop-shadows is not very readable. You can see that, when you have Comic
+ drop-shadow right next to source code examples.

If you ever intend to use this presentation, you'll have your audience
concentrating on the slides, rather than on your speech.

What I tell myself when making presentations: "Visual aid, not visual
playground".


--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/

Rule of Open-Source Programming #37:

Duplicate effort is inevitable. Live with it.
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 03:49
(Received via mailing list)
2007/3/31, Phillip G. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:

>I can't say much about the content (yet), but about the presentation:
> >Comic Sans (whatever it is called), together with the playful
> >drop-shadows is not very readable. You can see that, when you have Comic
> >+ drop-shadow right next to source code examples.
>
>
You're absolutely right.

To tell you the whole story,  the drop-shadow is much lighter in the
original PowerPoint document.
The problem is that I haven't been able to upload the PDF version of
this
file into my WordPress blog.

I try to create another PDF file through OpenOffice and the resulting
PDF
file is uploadable into WordPress !!
I have to investigate this strange thing.
The side effect is that drop shadows in OpenOffice are much more darker
!

Anyway,  I just uploaded a new version.

Thanks for your feedback.

Chauk-Mean.
Phillip G. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 04:13
(Received via mailing list)
Chauk-Mean P wrote:

> Anyway,  I just uploaded a new version.

Better readable by far! now I don't feel like I need new glasses anymore
;)

The only thing I'd change (or better: create a second version!), would
be to substitute Comic with another, less "playful", more "business
like" font. Verdana is a good idea, or Calibri (ships with MS Office
2007).

--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
http://cynicalryan.110mb.com/

Rule of Open-Source Programming #37:

Duplicate effort is inevitable. Live with it.
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 05:03
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi.  There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.

Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
that is actually public domain:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
giving people their freedom.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)
Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 06:28
(Received via mailing list)
On 31 Mar 2007, at 02:02, Gregory B. wrote:
> You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
> rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)
Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License (http://
www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html) which whilst probably
flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:

a. you wrote your stuff;
b. other people can use your stuff;
c. they must credit you for creating it.

Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
the month ;)


Ellie

Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the 'time'-
dependent asymmetries of phase space.
Augie De Blieck Jr. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 06:52
(Received via mailing list)
http://bancomicsans.com/

That's all I have to say about that.

-Augie
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 06:53
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
>
> Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
> doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
> the month ;)

Standard licensing choices are better.  Ellie, is this what you're
looking for?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 07:14
(Received via mailing list)
Augie De Blieck Jr. wrote:
> http://bancomicsans.com/
>
> That's all I have to say about that.
>
> -Augie
>
>
Well, for what it's worth, they oughta ban dihydrogen monoxide too.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 07:26
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:52:21AM +0900, Gregory B. wrote:
>
> Standard licensing choices are better.  Ellie, is this what you're looking
> for?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Most likely, one would choose the attribution/share-alike, rather than
simply a pure attribution license.  The difference is that with a share-
alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
not necessarily the case.  The link:
  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
controlling copying and so on.  That was part of the reason that I
eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 07:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 12:13:52PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Augie De Blieck Jr. wrote:
> >http://bancomicsans.com/
> >
> >That's all I have to say about that.
> >
> Well, for what it's worth, they oughta ban dihydrogen monoxide too.

I'm of the opinion that we should ban all prohibitions, personally.
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 08:55
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/30/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> not necessarily the case.  The link:
>   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

If you read up in the thread I already recommended this.  I was just
offering an alternative to writing your own license if all you want is
attribution and indemnification.

> I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
> license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
> controlling copying and so on.  That was part of the reason that I
> eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
> everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
> assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.

Bad idea for community friendly projects.  I don't want to learn your
license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
people will be likely to understand, too.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 10:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 01:54:51PM +0900, Gregory B. wrote:
> >alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
> >all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
> >not necessarily the case.  The link:
> >  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
> If you read up in the thread I already recommended this.  I was just
> offering an alternative to writing your own license if all you want is
> attribution and indemnification.

I wasn't referring to writing your own license.  The attribution/share-
alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I
provided.


> people will be likely to understand, too.
Good for you.

1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it.

2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to
"live with" other extant licenses.  It wasn't a capricious decision.  It
was a decision born of frustration.  In any case, the license I created
was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with
Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing)
then you'll have no problem with what I use.
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 10:17
(Received via mailing list)
2007/3/31, Phillip G. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
>
>
> >Better readable by far! now I don't feel like I need new glasses anymore
> ;)
> >
> >The only thing I'd change (or better: create a second version!), would
> >be to substitute Comic with another, less "playful", more "business
> >like" font. Verdana is a good idea, or Calibri (ships with MS Office
> 2007).


Ruby is fun so I chose to use a funny font :-).

Chauk-Mean.
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 10:22
(Received via mailing list)
2007/3/31, Gregory B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:

>If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
> >the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
> >public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
> >rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)


I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
benefit of the Ruby community :-) !

Chauk-Mean.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 10:42
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 03:21:54PM +0900, Chauk-Mean P wrote:
> 2007/3/31, Gregory B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
>
> >If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
> >>the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
> >>public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
> >>rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)
>
> I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
> benefit of the Ruby community :-) !

Excellent.  I'm a fan of public domain -- except for the fact that it's
not necessarily hereditary for derivative works.  That's a minor
annoyance, however, as it's not directly offensive like some other
licensing terms I've encountered.
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 12:59
(Received via mailing list)
2007/3/31, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
>
> >> I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
> >> benefit of the Ruby community :-) !
>
> >Excellent.  I'm a fan of public domain -- except for the fact that it's
> >not necessarily hereditary for derivative works.  That's a minor
> >annoyance, however, as it's not directly offensive like some other
> >licensing terms I've encountered.
>
>
Now that the licensing issue is cleared and the used font is more
readable,
I would appreciate some feedback on the content.
Indeed, I intend to develop some of the described facets of Ruby more
deeply
(article form rather than slide form) in the future.

So feel free to comment on this mailing list or directly on the blog
page.

Chauk-Mean.
Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 13:42
(Received via mailing list)
On 31 Mar 2007, at 03:52, Gregory B. wrote:
>>
>> Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
>> doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
>> the month ;)
>
> Standard licensing choices are better.  Ellie, is this what you're
> looking for?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

I much prefer my wording ;)


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 15:50
(Received via mailing list)
* Chad P., 31.03.2007 05:26:
> I'm of the opinion that we should ban all prohibitions,
> personally.

This statement is self-contradicting from a purely logical point of
view because a ban of all prohibitions were a prohibition. Epimenides
paradox again. Besides that the laws dealing with capital crimes all
include a prohibition of a certain kind of action (e.g. murder) which
I definitely don't want to see banned. It seems that removing
prohibitions that have shown to be of value is en vogue these days.
For well over 100 years there used to be an overwhelming consent in
the scientific world to not even consider "design" as part of an
explanation of any observation made. Now the creator is back.

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Alex Y. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 17:23
(Received via mailing list)
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> * Chad P., 31.03.2007 05:26:
>> I'm of the opinion that we should ban all prohibitions,
>> personally.
>
> This statement is self-contradicting from a purely logical point of
> view because a ban of all prohibitions were a prohibition.
I think that might have been the point...
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 17:50
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/31/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> I wasn't referring to writing your own license.  The attribution/share-
> alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I
> provided.

Please read upwards more carefully.
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/...

> > Bad idea for community friendly projects.  I don't want to learn your
> > license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
> > people will be likely to understand, too.
>
> Good for you.

No need to be rude.

> 1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it.

Dual licensing is an acceptable way to provide both your terms and a
more standard set of terms, but it's not ideal.  It means if I want to
contribute back to you, I still need to understand your home grown
license, which, at least in my case, means you'd be less likely to see
contributions from me.

> 2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to
> "live with" other extant licenses.  It wasn't a capricious decision.  It
> was a decision born of frustration.  In any case, the license I created
> was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with
> Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing)
> then you'll have no problem with what I use.

Except that I don't want yet another license to remember.
Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 18:27
(Received via mailing list)
On 31 Mar 2007, at 12:49, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> For well over 100 years there used to be an overwhelming consent in
> the scientific world to not even consider "design" as part of an
> explanation of any observation made. Now the creator is back.

Yes, well both sides of that argument are equally as illogical. As
far as I'm aware no one has ever proposed an experiment that can
either confirm or deny the existence of a 'creator', and that makes
atheism as much a religious belief as theism.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 18:50
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

> On 31 Mar 2007, at 12:49, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
>> For well over 100 years there used to be an overwhelming consent in
>> the scientific world to not even consider "design" as part of an
>> explanation of any observation made. Now the creator is back.
>
> Yes, well both sides of that argument are equally as illogical. As far as I'm
> aware no one has ever proposed an experiment that can either confirm or deny
> the existence of a 'creator', and that makes atheism as much a religious
> belief as theism.

indeed.  i like this way of thinking about it:

"what science finds to be nonexistent, we must accept as nonexistent;
but what
science merely does not find is a completely different matter... it is
quite
clear that there are many, many mysterious things." -- h.h. the 14th
dalai lama


-a
Servando G. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 19:35
(Received via mailing list)
<html><head><meta name="Generator" content="PSI HTML/CSS Generator"/>
<style type="text/css"><!--
body{font-family:'Tahoma';font-size:10pt;font-color:'#000000';}
LI{display:list-item;margin:0.00in;}
p{display:block;margin:0.00in;}
body{}
--></style>
</head><BODY ><div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;">Are we not getting off
topic, this list is for Ruby related topics. I ,for one, firmly believe
in a Creator but this is not the place to discuss this. I feel that due
to the high volume of &#160;traffic, We the members of this list are
losing valuable assets (people).</SPAN></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;">Sam Garcia<br /><br /></span></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; On 31 Mar 2007, at
12:49, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt;</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:maroon;">&gt;&gt; For well over
100 years there used to be an overwhelming consent</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:maroon;">&gt;&gt; in the
scientific world to not even consider "design" as part of</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:maroon;">&gt;&gt; an explanation
of any observation made. Now the creator is back.</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:maroon;">&gt;&gt;</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt;</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; Yes, well both sides
of that argument are equally as illogical. As</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; far as I'm aware no
one has ever proposed an experiment that can</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; either confirm or
deny the existence of a 'creator', and that makes</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; atheism as much a
religious belief as theism.</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt;</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt;</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; Ellie</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt;</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; Eleanor
McHugh</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; Games With
Brains</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; ----</SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="font-size:10pt;color:navy;">&gt; raise ArgumentError
unless @reality.responds_to? :reason</SPAN></div>
</body></html>
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 21:08
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 10:49:26PM +0900, Gregory B. wrote:
> On 3/31/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I wasn't referring to writing your own license.  The attribution/share-
> >alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I
> >provided.
>
> Please read upwards more carefully.
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/...

I'll just take it as a given that I'd forgotten about that bit, then.  I
don't really feel like verifying the entire chain of discussion -- but
you have definitely pointed out the fact that you mentioned by-sa
already.  Mea culpa.


>
> >> Bad idea for community friendly projects.  I don't want to learn your
> >> license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
> >> people will be likely to understand, too.
> >
> >Good for you.
>
> No need to be rude.

Funny -- "Good for you." was my way of saying "No need to be rude."


>
> >1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it.
>
> Dual licensing is an acceptable way to provide both your terms and a
> more standard set of terms, but it's not ideal.  It means if I want to
> contribute back to you, I still need to understand your home grown
> license, which, at least in my case, means you'd be less likely to see
> contributions from me.

So sorry.  If I don't like the license you'd rather use, it's not the
license I'm going to use.  That's pretty much tautological.


>
> >2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to
> >"live with" other extant licenses.  It wasn't a capricious decision.  It
> >was a decision born of frustration.  In any case, the license I created
> >was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with
> >Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing)
> >then you'll have no problem with what I use.
>
> Except that I don't want yet another license to remember.

What, exactly, is this supposed to mean to my lack of satisfaction with
certain other licenses?
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 21:10
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 06:42:33PM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> >>c. they must credit you for creating it.
> >>
> >>Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
> >>doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
> >>the month ;)
> >
> >Standard licensing choices are better.  Ellie, is this what you're
> >looking for?
> >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>
> I much prefer my wording ;)

Yours is certainly more amusing -- and easier to grasp.  There are a
couple of potential legal ambiguities in there, but nothing ambiguous
in terms of your intentions, as far as I can see.

Note: IANAL (obviously)
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 21:12
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:59:21PM +0900, Chauk-Mean P wrote:
> >
> Now that the licensing issue is cleared and the used font is more readable,
> I would appreciate some feedback on the content.
> Indeed, I intend to develop some of the described facets of Ruby more deeply
> (article form rather than slide form) in the future.
>
> So feel free to comment on this mailing list or directly on the blog page.

I pretty much try to limit myself to an in-depth look at one research
paper, presentation, et cetera, at a time -- but I may do so as soon as
I'm done reading this half-baked Internet Security Threat Report for the
second half of 2006 that Symantec is peddling as gospel.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 21:14
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 08:49:23PM +0900, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> For well over 100 years there used to be an overwhelming consent in
> the scientific world to not even consider "design" as part of an
> explanation of any observation made. Now the creator is back.

I'm also of the opinion that we should ban all attempts to confuse the
issue with facts when I make an ironic statement that someone treats
seriously.

On the other hand, I generally agree with your statements -- if I put on
my "serious hat" for a bit.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 21:18
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 10:22:32PM +0900, Alex Y. wrote:
> Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> >* Chad P., 31.03.2007 05:26:
> >>I'm of the opinion that we should ban all prohibitions,
> >>personally.
> >
> >This statement is self-contradicting from a purely logical point of
> >view because a ban of all prohibitions were a prohibition.
> I think that might have been the point...

Gold star . . . or would you prefer a cookie?  I have websites that
distribute cookies, if you want one.

Sorry.  I'm feeling silly.  Yes, you're right -- that was the point.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 21:20
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:35:09AM +0900, Servando G. wrote:

[stuff]

The entire contents of your email were shoveled into an HTML attachment
that I did not read.  I'm using a text-based mail user agent, and have
no interest in exposing myself to the mountain of spam, phishing, et
cetera that comes with using HTML-based email clients.  If you wanted
me, among others, to read that email, you may want to rethink the way
you send email to the list.  If not, feel free to ignore this message.

Thank you.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 21:23
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:50:06PM +0900, removed_email_address@domain.invalid 
wrote:
> >religious belief as theism.
>
> indeed.  i like this way of thinking about it:
>
> "what science finds to be nonexistent, we must accept as nonexistent; but
> what
> science merely does not find is a completely different matter... it is quite
> clear that there are many, many mysterious things." -- h.h. the 14th dalai
> lama

Excellent.  I agree 100%.

On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily means that there's a
whole lot of point trying to shoehorn theology into science, either.
Science is basically about the testable.  Because the existence or
nonexistence of a Creator is not at this time a testable hypothesis,
it's irrelevant to (rigorous) science.  Believe or not on your own time,
and I'll do the same, but I'd prefer that offshoots of Creationism not
be claimed as another field of science.

Woah, that's REALLY off-topic.  I guess I should shut up about that now.
You know my opinion, as stated above.  I'm done now.
Austin Z. (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 22:34
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/31/07, removed_email_address@domain.invalid 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> "what science finds to be nonexistent, we must accept as nonexistent; but what
> science merely does not find is a completely different matter... it is quite
> clear that there are many, many mysterious things." -- h.h. the 14th dalai lama

The other way of considering it the way that Dawkins has put it in
_The God Delusion_. Science can't prove that "god" doesn't exist. It
can say a lot about the *likelihood* of the existence of a
god-the-creator, and the *likelihood* is very very low. Dawkins
himself, when pressed, doesn't call himself an atheist as much as a
strong agnostic with significant doubts about the likelihood of the
existence of a god (he calls that "Temporary Agnosticism in
Practice").

He's much less forgiving of the abuse of scientific methods by theists
who assume that a creator's existence is a given and then try to
perform science on that basis.

-austin
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-03-31 23:41
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Austin Z. wrote:

> assume that a creator's existence is a given and then try to perform science
> on that basis.
>

yeah.  i read some of that.  the guy is so aggressive though, and
obviously
hasn't understood godel's work on incompleteness: he seems to view logic
as
some sort of finality.  otherwise interesting though.

sorry for way ot everyone.  i'm ducking out.

-a
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt (Guest)
on 2007-04-01 00:48
(Received via mailing list)
* Chad P., 31.03.2007 19:14:
> I'm also of the opinion that we should ban all attempts to confuse the
> issue with facts when I make an ironic statement that someone treats
> seriously.

Oh, I see. Your the statement was not sarcastic but ironic. That
explains why I found it not sarcastic enough and felt the need to add
some more sarcasm - which eventually failed to be noticed as being
sarcasm. Sorry about that 8-|

Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-04-01 08:16
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 05:47:23AM +0900, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> * Chad P., 31.03.2007 19:14:
> > I'm also of the opinion that we should ban all attempts to confuse the
> > issue with facts when I make an ironic statement that someone treats
> > seriously.
>
> Oh, I see. Your the statement was not sarcastic but ironic. That
> explains why I found it not sarcastic enough and felt the need to add
> some more sarcasm - which eventually failed to be noticed as being
> sarcasm. Sorry about that 8-|

Was that irony?

Regardless, I think you're confusing the issue with facts.  Wasn't that
banned?
Ilan B. (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 01:20
Chauk-Mean P wrote:

> Now that the licensing issue is cleared and the used font is more
> readable,
> I would appreciate some feedback on the content.
> Indeed, I intend to develop some of the described facets of Ruby more
> deeply
> (article form rather than slide form) in the future.
>
>

Sure thing, I am totally burnt from bug fixing so I will comment on your
slides

Slide 12) Doesn't illustrate duck typing at all as I can write the exact
same thing in Java.  You could have illustrated the point more
accurately by assigning the types to a temporary and then invoking the
method
class Duck; def quack; "quack"; end; end;
class Bird; def quack; "chirp"; end; end;
[Duck.new, Bird.new].each {|duck| duck.quack}

Slide 13) Doesn't add anything that wasn't already mentioned in slide 12

Slide 14) You are implying that Java's containers do not support
heterogeneous types which it does and since JDK 1.5 and the insertion of
generics,  your point about downcasting is also moot.

Slide 15) All wrong, please see comments for slide 14

Slide 16) Your comments also apply to static languages, the need for
testing is equal to both types of languages.  There has been no
quantitive study on the reduction of bugs due to static language's
compile type checks (and has been discussed to death on this list).  I
believe you are misleading your intended audience here

Slide 17) What does talking about  Erlang have anything remotely to do
with Ruby especially in the context of which it's being posed:
dynasism(spelling).  So what if I can build a fault tolerant system in
Erlang, can I do it in Ruby????  Erlang and Ruby couldn't be more
different in their approach and implementation.  The only thing they
share is "some" aspects from functional language sets.  Comparing the 2
is like comparing apples and farmers

Slide 19) I don't have to make a custom class to convert a type or
modify some behaviour, I can simply open up the class and mess with it
(as you yourself mentione later in the slide show).  Secondly, it
"doesn't have to make sense" and I can do it regardless of my level of
sanity as I do most things.

Slide 22) If "top level functions" are "private" methods of class
Object, there would be no way to call them without a receiver which is
simply not the case

Slide 23) Although I would intend to agree with you here, James B.
certainly won't.  This is an argument that has gone back to the 70's and
both sides are in war escalation mode right now.
Anyways, if you are going to mention buzzwords, you should mention
polymorphism below encapsulation and mention inheritance at the bottom
as it's the view of Peter Coad and many others that inheritance violates
efforts at encapsulation and therefore usually aggregation is the better
choice.

Slide 24) Point about attributes only allowed to be defined within their
class definition is wrong.  In ruby I can define one almost anywhere
with Object::instance_variable_set or Module::module_eval.

Slide 26) Who are you to say what "private" means.  Each class has their
own definition and either could be viewed as the truth.  Given that, I
can still access private methods in a class by going through send() so
your statement is not correct

Slide 27) How is C++ multiple inheritance complex?  It may be complex
for a compiler but I am not a compiler.. :) If you are referring to
diamond ambiguity, then I would agree with you but you don't explain
yourself here.   Stating that java's single inheritance is "annoying"
won't win you any friends but will invite flames your way.  Is there any
way you could state it differently?

Slide 28) Your statement under benefits makes absolutely no sense.

Slide 32) Again you bring up Erlang and concurrency but Ruby is not
Erlang and can obviously have side effects from method invocation.  In
fact, if it didn't, we couldn't change the state of any object!  Are you
trying to sell Ruby or Erlang here?  In Erlang, I can't change the
variable once it's instantiated.. <-- see that doesn't have anything to
do with anything either!

Slide 34) Subjective analysis again.  Anonymous Java classes are not
very difficult at all and there are indeed issues with closures that are
being addressed for ruby 2.0

Slide 47) Will anger many readers as it's subjective again.  Please play
nice!

Slide 48) Why does the omission of class methods make a language less
object oriented.  Seems to me that class level scope is akin to global
scope but is wrapped in a cute namespace.  Variables exposed at class
level keeps developers up to 3:00 am debugging their little servers..
Secondly, who cares if the library is procedural, I invite you to take a
look at ruby's c IO libraries.

Slide 53) Subjective to the point of insanity..

slide 54) I usually know when a book ends even if it's doesn't say "the
end".

I like the style and presentation but some of your comments have to be
corrected and you should make an effort not to irritate python, php,
java, and c++ developers..

let us know how it was received..

ilan
Gavin K. (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 01:35
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 2, 3:20 pm, Ilan B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Slide 22) If "top level functions" are "private" methods of class
> Object, there would be no way to call them without a receiver which is
> simply not the case

I think you have that backwards. Private methods *cannot* be called
with an explicit receiver:

  def foo; "bar"; end
  puts Object.private_methods.grep( /foo/ )
  #=> foo
  puts foo
  #=> bar
  puts self.foo
  #=> tmp.rb:4: private method `foo' called for main:Object
(NoMethodError)

  class Foo
    def go1
      secret_word
    end
    def go2
      self.secret_word
    end

    private
      def secret_word
        "bird"
      end
  end

  f = Foo.new
  p f.go1
  #=> "bird"

  p f.go2
  #=> tmp.rb:7:in `go2': private method `secret_word' called for #<Foo:
0x2835584> (NoMethodError)


> Slide 24) Point about attributes only allowed to be defined within their
> class definition is wrong.  In ruby I can define one almost anywhere
> with Object::instance_variable_set or Module::module_eval.
>
> Slide 26) Who are you to say what "private" means.  Each class has their
> own definition and either could be viewed as the truth.  Given that, I
> can still access private methods in a class by going through send() so
> your statement is not correct

IMO both of the above slides are correct. Just because Ruby lets you
do crazy things (break encapsulation by reaching 'inside' via
instance_eval or send) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and function
well.


> Slide 53) Subjective to the point of insanity..

Now now, be nice :)
Ilan B. (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 01:41
Gavin K. wrote:
> On Apr 2, 3:20 pm, Ilan B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> Slide 22) If "top level functions" are "private" methods of class
>> Object, there would be no way to call them without a receiver which is
>> simply not the case
>
> I think you have that backwards. Private methods *cannot* be called
> with an explicit receiver:
>

Doh!  ofcourse,  my bad..  I will pray to the ruby gods and ask for
forgiveness (and for one f*#$#ing job in my local area)

>
>> Slide 24) Point about attributes only allowed to be defined within their
>> class definition is wrong.  In ruby I can define one almost anywhere
>> with Object::instance_variable_set or Module::module_eval.
>>
>> Slide 26) Who are you to say what "private" means.  Each class has their
>> own definition and either could be viewed as the truth.  Given that, I
>> can still access private methods in a class by going through send() so
>> your statement is not correct
>
> IMO both of the above slides are correct. Just because Ruby lets you
> do crazy things (break encapsulation by reaching 'inside' via
> instance_eval or send) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and function
> well.
>
>
>> Slide 53) Subjective to the point of insanity..

Agreed..   I officially retract

>
> Now now, be nice :)

Kisses!

ilan
Marcin R. (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 02:20
(Received via mailing list)
Hello, i noticed that for every RPC call distributed ruby opens separate
connection, this can create huge bottleneck - especially when using with
SSL,
anyone have any idea how to make persistent connections - of course i
can
read sources for whole library, but mayby someone already solved this
problem, mayby there's some "keep-alive" for x secs options.
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 13:29
(Received via mailing list)
As for any presentation, there are a lot of things that are said and
that
are not written in the slides.


2007/4/2, Ilan B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:


> >Slide 12) Doesn't illustrate duck typing at all as I can write the exact
> >same thing in Java.  You could have illustrated the point more
> >accurately by assigning the types to a temporary and then invoking the
> >method
> >class Duck; def quack; "quack"; end; end;
> >class Bird; def quack; "chirp"; end; end;
> >[Duck.new, Bird.new].each {|duck| duck.quack}


As stated in the slide, "The type of an object is defined by what that
object can do (and not by its class/interface)."

In the code snippet,
- I do not have to declare the type of a variable
a_duck = Duck.new
- I can request an object to walk and it will work if the object has the
corresponding method
a_duck.walk
As Duck defines a walk method, the above request will succeed and there
is
no need for having a type defining the walk capability.
This is quite relevant regarding duck typing.


>Slide 13) Doesn't add anything that wasn't already mentioned in slide 12


From the Ruby side, there is nothing new.
The point here is to indicate that there is no need to have an interface
concept like in Java for having different implementations.


>Slide 14) You are implying that Java's containers do not support
> >heterogeneous types which it does and since JDK 1.5 and the insertion of
> >generics,  your point about downcasting is also moot.

>Slide 15) All wrong, please see comments for slide 14


As stated in slide 15 :
- I just said that Java untyped collections or generic collections for
type
Object DO support heterogeneous types.
But the drawback is that you NEED to downcast a retrieved element.
- Conversely, if you use a generic collection for a type X (e.g.
TalkingAnimal) different than Object, you can put only objects of type
X.
You cannot put an object that is not of type X (e.g Rabbit2)
You avoid most downcasts for retrieved elements. Thus you can retrieve a
TalkingAnimal and call talk.
But if you put an object of type Y that extends the capability of X
(e.gDuck2) and you want to call a method of Y (
e.g. walk), then you need to downcast to Y.

Tell me what is wrong about that ?


>Slide 16) Your comments also apply to static languages, the need for
> >testing is equal to both types of languages.  There has been no
> >quantitive study on the reduction of bugs due to static language's
> >compile type checks (and has been discussed to death on this list).  I
> >believe you are misleading your intended audience here


Exactly. I just want to mean that the important thing here is testing
and
not type checking whether static or dynamic.


>Slide 17) What does talking about  Erlang have anything remotely to do
> >with Ruby especially in the context of which it's being posed:
> >dynasism(spelling).  So what if I can build a fault tolerant system in
> >Erlang, can I do it in Ruby????  Erlang and Ruby couldn't be more
> >different in their approach and implementation.  The only thing they
> >share is "some" aspects from functional language sets.  Comparing the 2
> >is like comparing apples and farmers


I just want to mean here that they are both dynamic languages but good
ones.



> >Slide 19) I don't have to make a custom class to convert a type or
> >modify some behaviour, I can simply open up the class and mess with it
> >(as you yourself mentione later in the slide show).  Secondly, it
> >"doesn't have to make sense" and I can do it regardless of my level of
> >sanity as I do most things.


You're right. "Custom class" is too restrictive.

In my example, I use the to_str coercion method. This is an easy
illustration of type conversion to a String.
But my Complex class cannot be used like a String in all cases.
"if it really makes sense" is just a caution. to_str is definitively
different than to_s.


>Slide 22) If "top level functions" are "private" methods of class
> >Object, there would be no way to call them without a receiver which is
> >simply not the case



They are private methods of Object.


>Slide 23) Although I would intend to agree with you here, James B.
> >certainly won't.  This is an argument that has gone back to the 70's and
> >both sides are in war escalation mode right now.
> >Anyways, if you are going to mention buzzwords, you should mention
> >polymorphism below encapsulation and mention inheritance at the bottom
> >as it's the view of Peter Coad and many others that inheritance violates
> >efforts at encapsulation and therefore usually aggregation is the better
> >choice.


These are only two of the main features of OO that are particularly well
captured in Ruby.


>Slide 24) Point about attributes only allowed to be defined within their
> >class definition is wrong.  In ruby I can define one almost anywhere
> >with Object::instance_variable_set or Module::module_eval.


The normal way is encapsulation. But you can break encapsulation as
stated
in slide 37.


>Slide 26) Who are you to say what "private" means.  Each class has their
> >own definition and either could be viewed as the truth.
>

In C++ and Java, an instance of a given class can access the private
members
of another instance of the same class.
In the real life, this is not the case. We're both Human or instances of
class Human, but I don't want you to access my private data.

Related with slide 23, Ruby encapsulation reflects better the real life.


>Slide 27) How is C++ multiple inheritance complex?  It may be complex
> >for a compiler but I am not a compiler.. :) If you are referring to
> >diamond ambiguity, then I would agree with you but you don't explain
> >yourself here.   Stating that java's single inheritance is "annoying"
> >won't win you any friends but will invite flames your way.  Is there any
> >way you could state it differently?


The diamond ambiguity is one point. The other point is virtual
inheritance
when you want to have only one instance of a base class that is
inherited
multiple times.
Regarding Java, it is just a fact.


>Slide 28) Your statement under benefits makes absolutely no sense.


I don't know how to say it differently.


>Slide 32) Again you bring up Erlang and concurrency but Ruby is not
> >Erlang and can obviously have side effects from method invocation.  In
> >fact, if it didn't, we couldn't change the state of any object!  Are you
> >trying to sell Ruby or Erlang here?  In Erlang, I can't change the
> >variable once it's instantiated.. <-- see that doesn't have anything to
> >do with anything either!


Slide 31 and 32 are principles of Functional Programming as stated in
the
title.
In slide 32, I just give examples of "functional style" code in Ruby.

I never say that Ruby is a pure Functional Programming language. See
slide
33.


>Slide 34) Subjective analysis again.  Anonymous Java classes are not
> >very difficult at all and there are indeed issues with closures that are
> >being addressed for ruby 2.0


Anonymous Java classes are not difficult but you have to write a lot of
code.
Ruby Blocks are thus easier to write. This is an objective fact.

>Slide 47) Will anger many readers as it's subjective again.  Please play
> nice!


Unlike defining a function, defining a method in Python requires self as
the
first parameter.
There is a lack of uniformity of definition between a function and a
method.
What is subjective ?

If you find that I made errors, please correct me.
But I always try to be fair.


>Slide 53) Subjective to the point of insanity..


What I want to mean here are :
- Java has introduced a lot of features simplifying the work of
programmer
(garbage collector to simplify memory allocation...)
- Ruby adds another level of simplification (dynamic typing,
block/closure
...)
This is the reason why Groovy has been created.

I've programmed both in Java and C++ and I'm firmly convinced that we
have
to integrate technologies.
See the title of this slide.


>I like the style and presentation but some of your comments have to be
> >corrected and you should make an effort not to irritate python, php,
> >java, and c++ developers..


Great. I hope that my answers will make you like it more :-)

>let us know how it was received..


Very well.
This has already been presented. There were Java, Python and PHP
programmers.
What the audience liked was the "pragmatic approach" constituted by the
comparison of features with things they already know in Java, Python and
PHP.


Again, there are a lot of things I said and that are not written in the
slides.
This is why I will develop these slides with some future posts in my
blog.


Chauk-Mean.
http://selfreflexion.free.fr/
David A. Black (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 14:24
(Received via mailing list)
Hi --

On 4/3/07, Chauk-Mean P <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> As stated in the slide, "The type of an object is defined by what that
> This is quite relevant regarding duck typing.
I can see your point, but I think duck typing is better illustrated
with examples that avoid the word "duck" in any form.  The reason is
that if you have a Duck class and some other class, and a_duck and
a_fake_duck, you're basically saying that there's one class that
*really* represents the type, and others that sort of emulate or
imitate it.  It's probably better to be even-handed about it: there
are, say, two objects, and the "duck" abstraction applies equally to
both.


David
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 17:10
(Received via mailing list)
2007/4/3, David A. Black <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:
> >both.
> >
> >
> >David


I see what you mean. I will adapt the example with your suggestion in a
next
release.

Thanks for your feedback.

Chauk-Mean.

http://selfreflexion.free.fr/
Ilan B. (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 19:27
Chauk-Mean P wrote:

>
> As stated in slide 15 :
> - I just said that Java untyped collections or generic collections for
> type
> Object DO support heterogeneous types.
> But the drawback is that you NEED to downcast a retrieved element.
> - Conversely, if you use a generic collection for a type X (e.g.
> TalkingAnimal) different than Object, you can put only objects of type
> X.
> You cannot put an object that is not of type X (e.g Rabbit2)
> You avoid most downcasts for retrieved elements. Thus you can retrieve a
> TalkingAnimal and call talk.
> But if you put an object of type Y that extends the capability of X
> (e.gDuck2) and you want to call a method of Y (
> e.g. walk), then you need to downcast to Y.
>
> Tell me what is wrong about that ?
>


Chuck, please update your java from 1.4 to 1.5JDK (5.0) and check out
generics, there is no longer a NEED(why the upercase?)  to downcast from
containers as it's done for you.  It is a far cry from c++ templates
that are done at compile time but it still alleviates the need for
downcasting.

class SomeThing
{
}

java.util.Vector<SomeThing> noNeedForDownCastingVector = new
java.util.Vector<SomeThing>;

for your viewing pleasure: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/

I also fully realize that I didn't hear the talk that went with the
slides but you asked us for feedback on the slides knowing that we
didn't hear the presentation.  Be carefull what you wish for especially
on this list..

As for your example on duck typing, I can illustrate the same thing in
your slides by doing an exact port in Java which is known not to support
duck typing (message passing)

class Duck
{  public String quack() {return "quack";} }

class Bird
{  public String quack() {return "chirp";}}

d = new Duck(); d.quack();
b = new Bird(); b.quack();  //  does this mean java supports duck typing
too?? It does if we go by your slide

or C++
struct Duck { void quack() {cout << "quack";}}
struct Bird { void quack() {cout << "chirp";}}
Duck().quack(); Bird().quack();  // Wow.. guess this means c++ supports
duck typing too..

i.e. My point was in order to illustrate the construct, you must use a
temporary variable!

As for private methods in class Object, you are correct sir and I stand
corrected..

As for Erlang, it has simply nothing at all remotely to do with Ruby.
It's a seperate beast entirely and it appeared from your slide show that
you were utilizing it to promote Ruby based on a small subset of
functional programming.  It's kind of like saying that the language Ruby
is spelled exactly like the gem and we all know how shiny the gem is so
Ruby must be shiny by extension.  Actually come to think of it, I think
Ruby has more in common with a gem than it has with Erlang.

I experimented with Erlang from the urging of my former boss and
suffered from severe headaches, brushes with suicide, weight gain and
halitosis..   I am hoping the new pragmatic book will enlighten me but
one thing I can atest to is that it's far removed from Ruby and the only
time thy should be used in a sentence together is the following:
"Ruby starts with an 'R' and Erlang starts with an 'E' "


ilan
Chauk-Mean P (Guest)
on 2007-04-03 22:08
(Received via mailing list)
2007/4/3, Ilan B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>:

>> You avoid most downcasts for retrieved elements. Thus you can retrieve a
>> TalkingAnimal and call talk.
>> But if you put an object of type Y that extends the capability of X
>> (e.gDuck2) and you want to call a method of Y (
>> e.g. walk), then you need to downcast to Y.
>
>Chuck, please update your java from 1.4 to 1.5JDK (5.0) and check out
>generics, there is no longer a NEED(why the upercase?)  to downcast from
>containers as it's done for you.

Ilan,

First, my first name is Chauk-Mean not Chuck :-)

Regarding Java 1.5, I think that I'm up to date.
Indeed, the second example from the slide 15 uses generics (please take
a
second look at it) :

Map<String, TalkingAnimal> menagerie = new Map<String, TalkingAnimal>
...

Yes, a talking animal can talk directly and there is no need to downcast

TalkingAnimal duckObject = menagerie.get("my duck");
duckObject.talk

But if you want your object (which happens to be a duck ) to walk, you
have
to downcast it to Duck2

Duck2 duck = (Duck2)duckObject;
duck.walk;

As I said, with generics you avoid most downcasts but there are cases
like
this one which require downcasts.


> >I also fully realize that I didn't hear the talk that went with the
> >slides but you asked us for feedback on the slides knowing that we
> >didn't hear the presentation.  Be carefull what you wish for especially
> >on this list..


You're right. It seems that I have to make an annotated version with
some
additional comments.

>As for your example on duck typing, I can illustrate the same thing in
>your slides by doing an exact port in Java which is known not to support
>duck typing (message passing)

>class Duck
> >{  public String quack() {return "quack";} }
>
> >class Bird
> >{  public String quack() {return "chirp";}}
>
> >d = new Duck(); d.quack();
> >b = new Bird(); b.quack();  //  does this mean java supports duck typing
> too?? It does if we go by your slide


Hey, you have to declare the type in Java.
And of course, it will work if you declare the type like :
Duck d = new Duck();
d.quack();

It's a detail that is important.

It's the same for C++.

Chauk-Mean.
Joel VanderWerf (Guest)
on 2007-04-05 02:00
(Received via mailing list)
Marcin R. wrote:
> Hello, i noticed that for every RPC call distributed ruby opens separate
> connection, this can create huge bottleneck - especially when using with SSL,
> anyone have any idea how to make persistent connections - of course i can
> read sources for whole library, but mayby someone already solved this
> problem, mayby there's some "keep-alive" for x secs options.

Dunno about ssl, but you could always open an ssh tunnel with the -S
option, which lets several sessions share on connection.
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-04-05 03:19
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

> Marcin R. wrote:
>> Hello, i noticed that for every RPC call distributed ruby opens separate
>> connection, this can create huge bottleneck - especially when using with
>> SSL, anyone have any idea how to make persistent connections - of course i
>> can read sources for whole library, but mayby someone already solved this
>> problem, mayby there's some "keep-alive" for x secs options.
>
> Dunno about ssl, but you could always open an ssh tunnel with the -S option,
> which lets several sessions share on connection.

i think every call must open a connection - in case of 'yield'.  all drb
objects are servants.

-a
Joel VanderWerf (Guest)
on 2007-04-05 04:21
(Received via mailing list)
removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:
>> Dunno about ssl, but you could always open an ssh tunnel with the -S
>> option, which lets several sessions share on connection.
>
> i think every call must open a connection - in case of 'yield'.  all drb
> objects are servants.
>
> -a

Arg, you're right. One tunnel wouldn't be enough.
Marcin R. (Guest)
on 2007-04-11 13:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Wednesday 04 April 2007 23:18, removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:
>
> i think every call must open a connection - in case of 'yield'.  all drb
> objects are servants.
>
> -a

you probably didn't understand me :)
RPC calls are made over TCP/IP connections, but there's no reason why
each RPC
should have one connection - they probably should have some id, and
should be
all sent over one connection - i've been to busy to investigate this,
but
since it looks like noone knows anything about it, I'll check if it's
possible to make it happen.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.