i think the documentation at http://www.ruby-doc.org/ is fairly
useless.
is there a better one?
2008/5/27 [email protected]:
i think the documentation at http://www.ruby-doc.org/ is fairly
useless.is there a better one?
According to what standards?
robert
The pickaxe book is probably better overall.
And there is some rails-powered site … noobkit, which is ok, though
missing some things as well.
2008/5/27 Marc H. [email protected]:
The pickaxe book is probably better overall.
The pickaxe is actually linked from the site the OP mentioned.
robert
What sort of documentation are you looking for reference? tutorial?
At what level? Beginner, intermediate, expert?
I find ruby-doc to be great. But if you are looking for a tutorial, it
probably isn’t the place to go. It is much better as a reference.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:58 PM, James B. [email protected]
wrote:
I find ruby-doc to be great. But if you are looking for a tutorial, it
probably isn’t the place to go. It is much better as a reference.
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
posting, you can however post in between. In that case your post will
refer to the text above by convention :).
ruby-doc is great I agree, and there are most useful links to widely
accepted books and even tutorials.
Cheers
Robert
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Robert D. wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:58 PM, James B. [email protected]
wrote:I find ruby-doc to be great. But if you are looking for a tutorial,
it
probably isn’t the place to go. It is much better as a reference.
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
posting
Many others don’t mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long,
prefer top posting. I don’t know where the anti-toppers always seem to
feel that they can speak for everyone else.
///ark
This is top posting.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Victor R. [email protected]
wrote:
What’s top or bottom posting anyway?
This is bottom posting.
I just want to learn the “right” way to post or answer (which I hardly do
since I am a neophyte).Thanks
Victor
This is bottom posting a conclusion.
Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
Some mail readers work better this way, as well.
hth,
Todd
In article [email protected],
Mark W. [email protected] wrote:
Many others don’t mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long,
prefer top posting. I don’t know where the anti-toppers always seem to
feel that they can speak for everyone else.
In Usenet pro-toppers are extremely rare.
Somewhere I’ve seen good arguments that inter-quoting is much better for
discussion while full-quoting helps in coporate environments full of
technically barely-literate people CCing their e-mails to everybody.
BTW is this newsgroup bridged with some web forum? There’s this strange
Organization: header and those occasional “legale message” notes…
What’s top or bottom posting anyway?
I just want to learn the “right” way to post or answer (which I hardly
do
since I am a neophyte).
Thanks
Victor
On May 27, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Todd B. wrote:
Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
Only if a single email is regarded as a conversation. In actuality,
the -thread- is the conversation. Imagine if in a real conversation,
people felt impelled to prefix their remarks with every other remark
that’s already been made.
I bottom post because I don’t want to get jumped on by the anti-
toppers. But then, I also trim, so it doesn’t really matter. What I
hate is having to scroll down just to see what’s been added to the
thread.
///ark
On May 27, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Tobias W. wrote:
In article [email protected],
Mark W. [email protected] wrote:Many others don’t mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long,
prefer top posting. I don’t know where the anti-toppers always seem
to
feel that they can speak for everyone else.In Usenet pro-toppers are extremely rare.
There probably are no “pro-toppers.” But I would imagine that there
are people, like myself, who would rather not have to scroll to read a
post. I would also imagine that many agnostics bottom-post (even if
it’s less efficient) just to avoid the anti-toppers.
i agree that if you’re replying point by point to someone,
interposting (which is a form of bottom-posting) is the way to go. I
also think most people quote way too heavily (out of laziness).
Finally, I think some people need to learn to use email, instead of
quoting three pages, then sticking “Thanks!” at the bottom.
I’ve been doing this stuff since 1984. It’s only been relatively
recently that I’ve seen the insistence that bottoming is the “one true
way” and the attempted intimidation of anyone who doesn’t agree.
///ark
In article [email protected],
Mark W. [email protected] wrote:
Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
Top or bottom isn’t the point, inter-quoting vs. TOFU is. (the latter
being the German abbreviation for “reply first, fullquote appended”)
Only if a single email is regarded as a conversation. In actuality,
the -thread- is the conversation. Imagine if in a real conversation,
On a mailing list and in most newsreaders you only see one message body
at a time, especially when you “fetch unread” often. In that case it
does make sense to quote the immediate sentence you are replying to.
people felt impelled to prefix their remarks with every other remark
that’s already been made.
But we do! Watch any talkshow: So Mr A basically said that B sucks. I
concur. Whats your opinion, Mr C?
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Mark W. [email protected] wrote:
Please do not top post this community (as many others) prefer bottom
postingMany others don’t mind it either way, and if the quote trail is long, prefer
top posting. I don’t know where the anti-toppers always seem to feel that
they can speak for everyone else.
I have never seen anybody plead for top posting, I have however very
often seen people asking kindly or humorously to bottom post.
If you prefer top posts that seems to be unlucky for you especially as
you did not ask either kindly nor humorously.
I however do not take any offense and I was not speaking for others
but transmitting information gathered over the years.
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
and what happens when somebody is top posting.
Please note also that nobody ever has been agressed when kindly asking
not to top post, as it just happened to me I am afraid that maybe I
was not kind enough, if this is the case all my apologies.
It however remains my intimate conviction that bottom posting is the
accepted standard on this list, but if all of those who prefer top
posting speak up, things might change.
Cheers
Robert
–
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark W. wrote:
| On May 27, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Todd B. wrote:
|
|> Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
|
| Only if a single email is regarded as a conversation. In actuality, the
| -thread- is the conversation. Imagine if in a real conversation, people
| felt impelled to prefix their remarks with every other remark that’s
| already been made.
Condensing what has been said by somebody else actually is a honored
practice. Summing up the state of affairs (in spoken conversation) helps
focusing on what is being said by all parties and avoids the nasty habit
of getting side-tracked in minutiae or mired in tangents.
| I bottom post because I don’t want to get jumped on by the anti-toppers.
Consider that not every one is a) using a threaded email client, b)
follows all threads all the time, and b) most people skim before they
read (information filtering is a survival tactic).
Just top posting might (might) be acceptable in a business/one-on-one
conversation, but is considered rude otherwise: You don’t take the time
to adhere to convention / netiquette / waste other people’s time in
putting your response into context, why should others take the time to
read what you write?
| But then, I also trim, so it doesn’t really matter. What I hate is
| having to scroll down just to see what’s been added to the thread.
Which is especially aggravating if it is a rather high signal / noise
ratio (i.e. an AOL following a screen or two of content).
Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
Blog: http://justarubyist.blogspot.com
~ - You know you’ve been hacking too long when…
…you test a program, and it fails, so you jump into the editor, look
at it, jump out, recompile and test (without making changes) and it
still doesn’t work, so you jump … and it still doesn’t work
… recompile without any changes…
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkg8NM0ACgkQbtAgaoJTgL/xIQCaAyGRaptRE0h9mxAirU4ZbofA
srYAn3O3NM3eeLHssDliQTcqqvgkWeVb
=Zepl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In article
[email protected],
Victor R. [email protected] wrote:
Bottom posting tends to take on a more natural conversational feel.
Some mail readers work better this way, as well.
hth,
ToddThank you & I guess this is bottom posting!
Yes, except you managed to include a superfluous > quote mark
before your reply. That makes it harder for a reader to tell
what you wrote (“Thank you…”) apart from what Todd wrote.
The idea is to make it as easy as possible (ideally) for readers
to follow the discussion. If you’re asking a question or making
a point, people are more likely to understand you if you follow
commonly accepted guidelines, as described here:
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
Francis
On May 27, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Robert D. wrote:
I have never seen anybody plead for top posting
You’re missing my point. No one would plead for top posting. What I
was referring to is the anti-toppers who tell people that bottom-
posting is the standard. It’s not, as any casual observance of Usenet
posts would tell you.
I have however very
often seen people asking kindly or humorously to bottom post.
I actually haven’t seen many kindly requests and I’ve certainly never
seen a humorous request. Generally, the message is “Why are you top-
posting?” which implies that it’s not even necessary to explain why
that’s so terrible. (This is basically the original meaning of the
phrase “begging the question.”)
If you prefer top posts that seems to be unlucky for you especially as
you did not ask either kindly nor humorously.
This may be a language issue, Robert. I didn’t ask anyone to do
anything.
I however do not take any offense and I was not speaking for others
but transmitting information gathered over the years.
I’ll match my years against your years. 
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
and what happens when somebody is top posting.
I don’t know what you mean.
Please note also that nobody ever has been agressed when kindly asking
not to top post
Untrue.
It however remains my intimate conviction that bottom posting is the
accepted standard on this list
I’m curious - why do you think that? Is it because the anti-toppers
are the only ones who care deeply enough about the subject to speak
up? If so, it’s a mistake to impute a standard from that behavior.
Again, using statistics as a guide, bottom-posting is not a standard -
except to those who believe it is.
but if all of those who prefer top posting speak up, things might
change.
I don’t know of anyone who prefers top-posting.
Here are my preferences (and I don’t generally ask people to follow
them):
-
Don’t quote when it’s not necessary. Most of the time, a very short
quote suffices. -
If you’re replying to individual points, then put your responses
with each point. -
Otherwise, I couldn’t care less what you do.
///ark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Todd B. wrote:
| “- Because it’s makes sense.
| - Why should I bottom post?”
|
| …or something to that effect.
What I like to use (I don’t remember from whom I stole^Wborrowed it:
A: Because it makes it difficult to follow the conversation.
Q: Why is top posting bad?
| On a side note. Most of my non-techie friends consistently top post
| (with the added “benefit” of enclosing at the bottom a non-related
| email I sent them weeks ago), so maybe it has a lot to do with who is
| talking and what about.
In my experience, the TOFU style is most common in business and business
like environments.
Possibly, because it is an exchange of highly specific information, it
is, usually not a conversation or exchange of ideas, rarely are more
than two parties involved, and, last but not least, Outlook starts a new
reply at the top of the quoted text (and it is extremely difficult to
change that behavior).
Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
Blog: http://justarubyist.blogspot.com
~ Some people are pragmatists, taking things as they come and making
the best of the choices available. Some people are idealists, standing
for principle and refusing to compromise. And some people just act on
any whim that enters their heads. I pragmatically turn my whims into
principles! – Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkg8OgQACgkQbtAgaoJTgL9lugCghyN0lGEaWBlGPLU1E/7lKybz
fuEAoIwhymloCBqH8xkJkrR4J1qJ3zCi
=qP2s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----