Forum: Ruby graphing/charting application

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.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 02:52
(Received via mailing list)
I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
bar graphs.  PNG output would be ideal.  I just need to create a chart
or
two, so I'm not sure that learning the API for a new library and writing
software is exactly what I need.

Is there something in gems that'd suit my needs?  I'd be perfectly happy
with something that just takes a series of numbers and strings as input
and dumps an image file.  My preference would be for a 3D-looking chart
(with those faux-3D verticle bars in many a PowerPoint slide, for
instance), but 2D is acceptable as well.  In addition to helping with my
current need to generate a couple of visual aids, such a thing might
also
provide some useful hints on how to accomplish similar tasks in the
future when I look at the source code -- which is one of the reasons I'd
like to find something written in Ruby.

Any help is appreciated.
Michael G. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 03:04
(Received via mailing list)
On Jul 14, 2007, at 17:05 , Chad P. wrote:

> I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
> bar graphs.

Have you taken a look at Gruff? I haven't used it myself, but it
seems to be popular. Looks like it can do PNG bar graphs:

http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff

Michael G.
grzm seespotcode net
Stefan M. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 03:12
(Received via mailing list)
Chad P. wrote:
> I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
> bar graphs.  PNG output would be ideal.  I just need to create a chart or
> two, so I'm not sure that learning the API for a new library and writing
> software is exactly what I need.

http://scruffy.rubyforge.org/

gruff has been mentioned already
hadley wickham (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 11:17
(Received via mailing list)
> Is there something in gems that'd suit my needs?  I'd be perfectly happy
> with something that just takes a series of numbers and strings as input
> and dumps an image file.  My preference would be for a 3D-looking chart
> (with those faux-3D verticle bars in many a PowerPoint slide, for

You should really try to avoid those faux-3D bars - they make the
graph much hard to read.

If you want to learn more about the basics of good graph design
junkcharts, http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/, is a good
place to start.

Hadley
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 20:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 04:16:13PM +0900, hadley wickham wrote:
> place to start.
I'd normally agree, but in this case the purpose is to create a
pseudo-joking maretroid presentation graphic.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 20:28
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 08:01:43AM +0900, Michael G. wrote:
> http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff
Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
documentation?  I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many
libraries
figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 20:34
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/15/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
> > http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff
>
> Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
> available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
> documentation?  I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many libraries
> figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".

I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 20:35
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/15/07, Gregory B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
> > > http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff
> >
> > Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
> > available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
> > documentation?  I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many libraries
> > figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".
>
> I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.

s/Geoffry/Geoffrey/
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 20:38
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 01:33:12AM +0900, Gregory B. wrote:
> >>
> >> http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
> >> http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff
> >
> >Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
> >available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
> >documentation?  I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many libraries
> >figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".
>
> I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.

Sure . . . just as soon as I figure out how to use the library.  With
the
information that's provided, I could probably sort out how to create
simplest-case line graphs, but beyond that I'd have to put real time
into
it -- time I might prefer to spend on Scruffy, which it appears has
better documentation.
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-07-15 20:54
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/15/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> > I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.
>
> Sure . . . just as soon as I figure out how to use the library.  With the
> information that's provided, I could probably sort out how to create
> simplest-case line graphs, but beyond that I'd have to put real time into
> it -- time I might prefer to spend on Scruffy, which it appears has
> better documentation.

This might sound rude, but I don't intend it to be offensive.

What makes you think maintainers of weakly documented projects care
whether or not *you* use their software?

It really irks me when people whine about lack of documentation for
projects. Yes, it sucks, yes it makes it harder for general adoption
of projects, but that burden isn't necessarily on the original
developer's shoulders.

Free software is a gift.  It's also a collaborative effort.  If I
release an undocumented library and people who are skillful enough and
have sufficient time to read the source can make use of it, great.  If
someone wants to help document the software to show appreciation for
my work and learn in the process, as well as provide a resource for
others, even better.

What people forget to consider or refuse to consider is that adding
features to software or fixing bugs benefits the developers directly.
 Writing documentation *might* benefit them, but often the folks who
write these things are very busy and are already working on other
important things, so documentation doesn't get written.

It's fine to say "I don't have the time to learn this undocumented
lib" and move on to another one, but criticizing projects for not
being documented is a baseless argument.  You're asking why volunteers
don't volunteer more of their time to make *your* life easier, instead
of helping things along or at least *shutting up* when you're not
happy.

I apologize for a mini-rant here, but users who think project
maintainers owe them something really suck.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 01:31
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 01:53:25AM +0900, Gregory B. wrote:
> This might sound rude, but I don't intend it to be offensive.
>
> What makes you think maintainers of weakly documented projects care
> whether or not *you* use their software?

This might sound rude, too, and I honestly don't intend it to be
offensive either:

If you think my statement implied that they should care whether or not
*I* use their software, you need to learn some reading comprehension
skills.  I just answered the suggestion that I should contribute
documentation patches with some very concrete, real-world, reasonable
explanation for why that's unlikely -- even though I wish I *could*
submit documentation patches that easily.


>
> What people forget to consider or refuse to consider is that adding
> features to software or fixing bugs benefits the developers directly.
> Writing documentation *might* benefit them, but often the folks who
> write these things are very busy and are already working on other
> important things, so documentation doesn't get written.

What I find most annoying about the whole situation is that tools like
RDoc were written specifically to ease the process of creating
documentation, to provide a solid beginning to that documentation so
that
half the work is already done for someone that intimately knows the
software, but the end result is that many people seem to think that *is*
the documentation and never bother finishing the job.  Documentation is
an important part of any development effort -- almost as important as
the
software itself.  Documentation is important for the same reason
readable
code is important, and yet people who will argue for days on end about
the best way to eke that last bit of readability out of code will turn
around and go on producing software without even the most rudimentary
attempt to make documentation clear and useful.

Why bother creating a website with screenshots, marketing-speak
glorifications of the software, a Sourceforge project to entice other
users, and a gem package for distribution, without even doing the
minimal
documentation necessary to make it generally useful?  Time would be
better spent writing some useful documentation than creating image
galleries and using CSS to produce color gradients on the webpage.

I understand my goals are not the same as everyone else's, but I find it
quite difficult to figure out what goals are served by this sort of
example of priorities.


>
> It's fine to say "I don't have the time to learn this undocumented
> lib" and move on to another one, but criticizing projects for not
> being documented is a baseless argument.  You're asking why volunteers
> don't volunteer more of their time to make *your* life easier, instead
> of helping things along or at least *shutting up* when you're not
> happy.

This got blown far out of proportion from the intent of my previous
statements, thanks to comments about "whining" and passive-aggressive
insinuations that I should produce documentation or just enjoy the
software without any documentation.


>
> I apologize for a mini-rant here, but users who think project
> maintainers owe them something really suck.

I don't think project maintainers owe me something.  I think failing
utterly to produce useful documentation is kind of a strange trend to
see
in languages that come with excellent documentation tools, and I think
that my time is better spent using Scruffy (which has better
documentation) unless I want to actually become the Gruff project
maintainer myself.  You're the one that assigned value judgments,
whining
tone, and an attitude of entitlement to what I said -- not me.

I think people who put words in my mouth really suck.
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 02:09
(Received via mailing list)
In message <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>, Chad P. writes:
>attempt to make documentation clear and useful.
I think many developers underestimate the significance of documentation
to projects.  Of course, most of us have at least some practice figuring
things out without documentation, reading source, and so on...

But putting in a few years as a writer leaves me more concerned with
documentation than I used to be.  I'll say that much.

-s
Tim H. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 02:50
(Received via mailing list)
Peter S. wrote:
> I think many developers underestimate the significance of documentation
> to projects.  Of course, most of us have at least some practice figuring
> things out without documentation, reading source, and so on...
>
> But putting in a few years as a writer leaves me more concerned with
> documentation than I used to be.  I'll say that much.
>
+1. I did my time, too, helping document a C compiler/linker on a system
that had never had a C compiler/linker before. Then I worked in a
publications department for 3 years and got to see the other side, how
developers (generally) treat writers, which is to say, not well. This
left me with much more respect for the writer's point-of-view. A
dedicated and skilled writer can do a lot to make the software
successful.

Hobbyist software does not require documentation. Developers are
certainly free to simply throw it over the wall and say "here, take it
or leave it." But users are also free to evaluate the software by the
quality of its documentation.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 02:51
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:34:22AM +0900, Peter S. wrote:
> >around and go on producing software without even the most rudimentary
> >attempt to make documentation clear and useful.
>
> I think many developers underestimate the significance of documentation
> to projects.  Of course, most of us have at least some practice figuring
> things out without documentation, reading source, and so on...

True.  It's a shame that there isn't better documentation for some
projects, however -- especially since that often means someone will go
use something else (with better documentation) instead.  While I could
eventually puzzle out how to use Gruff effectively, for instance, I'd
rather have something with good documentation at my fingertips than have
to pore over source code just for a trivial use of the library.

Since I've been accused of something akin to solipsism before in this
discussion, I'll be clear: I'm not saying that I, personally, am an
important user to whom developers must cater.  Read my personal
experience as a symptom of a deeper problem with the lack of quality
documentation, please.


>
> But putting in a few years as a writer leaves me more concerned with
> documentation than I used to be.  I'll say that much.

Writing what amounts to tutorial documentation for money in the last few
years has certainly improved my understanding of the importance of
documentation -- but I think the biggest change to my perspective is in
the fact that I'm using libraries much more these days than I used to,
and thus finding poor library documentation far more problematic than I
used to.
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 03:02
(Received via mailing list)
In message <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>, Chad P. writes:
>> But putting in a few years as a writer leaves me more concerned with
>> documentation than I used to be.  I'll say that much.

>Writing what amounts to tutorial documentation for money in the last few
>years has certainly improved my understanding of the importance of
>documentation -- but I think the biggest change to my perspective is in
>the fact that I'm using libraries much more these days than I used to,
>and thus finding poor library documentation far more problematic than I
>used to.

Makes sense.

If I had more free time (new job + still a lot of pending freelance
work,
so not any time soon), I might start going through some of the major
Ruby
packages and updating the docs.  They're often pretty vague.

-s
List R. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 04:19
(Received via mailing list)
This may be OT at this point on the conversation but,  I've used XML/
swf charts for quite a while now and really like it

Sent from my iPhone
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 04:35
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/15/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:

> I don't think project maintainers owe me something.  I think failing
> utterly to produce useful documentation is kind of a strange trend to see
> in languages that come with excellent documentation tools, and I think
> that my time is better spent using Scruffy (which has better
> documentation) unless I want to actually become the Gruff project
> maintainer myself.  You're the one that assigned value judgments, whining
> tone, and an attitude of entitlement to what I said -- not me.
>
> I think people who put words in my mouth really suck.

You're right.  What I said came off as harsh and rude, and I apologize
for that.  I actually  was more springboarding into the general field
of complaints I hear about Ruby libs not being properly documented,
and I shouldn't have made it seem like I was directing that
frustration at you.

That having been said, undocumented software can be useful to those
who are willing to read the source.  Usually, unit tests are very
illuminating so long as they exist, and if some examples are
distributed with the source, that's enough to get going.  I really
wish that users would contribute more documentation to projects,
because often maintainers simply don't have the time.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that users should meet maintainers
half way.  When that doesn't happen, documentation doesn't get
written.  For example... you could probably help out gruff enormously
by asking relevant questions about things you cannot figure out easily
from the API docs.  But if you have no time for that, well, that's
understandable.  But I feel like all of us are only entitled to get
back what we put in.

Again, sorry for flipping out before, it was unwarranted.

-greg
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 11:56
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:34:15AM +0900, Gregory B. wrote:
> >I think people who put words in my mouth really suck.
> distributed with the source, that's enough to get going.  I really
>
> Again, sorry for flipping out before, it was unwarranted.

Fair 'nuff.

Frankly, I'm up to my eyeballs in projects -- both my own and those to
which I've already committed to helping out in peripheral ways, such as
contributing documentation (including the fact that I'm still trying to
find time to go through the TenDRA compiler's documentation and start
writing more).  I don't have time to write the documention for every
Ruby
library I want to use (slight exaggeration), though it'd be nice if I
did.  I spent the last week dealing with a webhost that kind of blew up
in my face, and am trying to get everything moved to a different webhost
now with broken database exports, et cetera.

Maybe in a week I'll look back at this and have the perspective to see
that I took what you said more harshly than intended, or more personally
than you intended.  When I wrote that reply, however, I just didn't
really take it very kindly.

Let's "kiss" and make up, or whatever the kids are doing these days.

By the way, that URL in my signature won't work until I get some more
stuff migrated to the new webhost.  Dammit.  I guess that serves as a
needed reminder. . . .
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 17:50
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/16/07, Chad P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > illuminating so long as they exist, and if some examples are
> > back what we put in.
> library I want to use (slight exaggeration), though it'd be nice if I
> did.  I spent the last week dealing with a webhost that kind of blew up
> in my face, and am trying to get everything moved to a different webhost
> now with broken database exports, et cetera.

What I've found in Ruport, which was the definition of poorly
documented until very recently, that it's really helpful to have users
just drop by the mailing list and say "I was able to get this and that
done but now I've hit brick wall because *foo* is undocumented.   This
at least lets maintainers focus little bits of time on the most in
demand sections of the system, instead of documenting things that may
not be helpful to folks.

It's amazing how little things like that can make a huge difference,
even if it amounts to a user sending that one email and never
responding again. (Of course, it's good to stick around too.)  This
mailing list is not the best place for those comments, because many
package maintainers can't keep up with the posts here. :)

> Maybe in a week I'll look back at this and have the perspective to see
> that I took what you said more harshly than intended, or more personally
> than you intended.  When I wrote that reply, however, I just didn't
> really take it very kindly.

It's understandable.  Tensions are high on the list lately, hopefully
things will calm down soon.
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-07-16 17:54
(Received via mailing list)
damn that google.  heres a sanely snipped response below.

On 7/16/07, Gregory B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
Ryan D. (Guest)
on 2007-07-17 03:22
(Received via mailing list)
On Jul 15, 2007, at 09:26 , Chad P. wrote:

> Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like
> RDoc is
> available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
> documentation?  I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many
> libraries
> figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes
> "documentation".

Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something is freely
made available to the public, the users are disallowed from being
polite? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many users figure
a scathing comment in IRC or a mail to ruby-talk constitutes
"constructive criticism".

Why do so many users never seem to bother to put in an ounce of
effort in looking at something for every pound of effort the author
puts into writing it in the first place?

It took me less than 60 seconds to download gruff, unpack it, and
notice that there is over 92K(!!) of tests. PLENTY of live testable
"documentation" right there. But instead of doing something like
that, your sense of entitlement made you think the above paragraph
was a good idea.

...Made slightly redundant by Gregory's replies, but I had to get it
off my chest...
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-17 04:08
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:16AM +0900, Ryan D. wrote:
>
> Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something is freely
> made available to the public, the users are disallowed from being
> polite? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many users figure
> a scathing comment in IRC or a mail to ruby-talk constitutes
> "constructive criticism".

Is there some kind of rule that states that everyone who takes note of
what I said has to blow it out of proportion, assign intent to it that
wasn't present, and generally try to put words in my mouth?


>
> Why do so many users never seem to bother to put in an ounce of
> effort in looking at something for every pound of effort the author
> puts into writing it in the first place?
>
> It took me less than 60 seconds to download gruff, unpack it, and
> notice that there is over 92K(!!) of tests. PLENTY of live testable
> "documentation" right there. But instead of doing something like
> that, your sense of entitlement made you think the above paragraph
> was a good idea.

Lay off the caffeine.  You're assuming an awful lot.


>
> ...Made slightly redundant by Gregory's replies, but I had to get it
> off my chest...

You should have sat on it.
Ryan D. (Guest)
on 2007-07-17 05:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Jul 16, 2007, at 17:05 , Chad P. wrote:

>>> "documentation".
>>
>> Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something is freely
>> made available to the public, the users are disallowed from being
>> polite? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many users figure
>> a scathing comment in IRC or a mail to ruby-talk constitutes
>> "constructive criticism".
>
> Is there some kind of rule that states that everyone who takes note of
> what I said has to blow it out of proportion, assign intent to it that
> wasn't present, and generally try to put words in my mouth?

The above is a direct quote of yours, so I didn't put words in your
mouth. I found it snide and rude because _it_is_snide_ so I didn't
blow it out of proportion. At worst, I could be guilty of assigning
intent, except, it really was your intent to be snide, wasn't it?
That seems plain as day to the rest of us.

snide |snīd| |snaɪd| |snʌɪd|
adjective
1 derogatory or mocking in an indirect way : "snide remarks about my
mother."
• (of a person) devious and underhanded : "a snide divorce lawyer."

snide
adjective
"at his final snide comment, she slapped him across the face"
disparaging, derogatory, deprecating, denigratory, insulting,
contemptuous; mocking, taunting, sneering, scornful, derisive,
sarcastic, spiteful, nasty, mean.
Chad P. (Guest)
on 2007-07-17 09:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:24:19AM +0900, Ryan D. wrote:
> >>>documentation?  I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many
> >Is there some kind of rule that states that everyone who takes note of
> >what I said has to blow it out of proportion, assign intent to it that
> >wasn't present, and generally try to put words in my mouth?
>
> The above is a direct quote of yours, so I didn't put words in your
> mouth. I found it snide and rude because _it_is_snide_ so I didn't
> blow it out of proportion. At worst, I could be guilty of assigning
> intent, except, it really was your intent to be snide, wasn't it?
> That seems plain as day to the rest of us.

See above, re: what *you* said about my words -- which, by the way, do
not reflect my intent or the necessary interpretation of my words at
all.


>
> snide |sn??d| |sna??d| |sn????d|
> adjective
> 1 derogatory or mocking in an indirect way : "snide remarks about my
> mother."
> ??? (of a person) devious and underhanded : "a snide divorce lawyer."

That was ironic.
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-07-18 07:55
(Received via mailing list)
Chad P. wrote:
>> ??? (of a person) devious and underhanded : "a snide divorce lawyer."
>
> That was ironic.

There are non-snide divorce lawyers?
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.