Issue #9 of ObjectiveView [pdf], a highly respected on-line journal has
a sort of Ruby Special: lots of articles devoted to Ruby, and Ruby on
Rails.
http://www.ratio.co.uk/objectiveview.html
http://www.ratio.co.uk/ov9pdf.pdf
zoat wrote:
Issue #9 of ObjectiveView [pdf], a highly respected on-line journal has
I’m not trying to troll, but calling something ‘highly respected’ while
advertising it has exactly the opposite effect of what you intend.
As for the issue… Yellow and orange? I think my eyes are bleeding.
The orange quotes with small bold type are hard to read (until you get
to 200% magnification), and the yellow borders constantly draw my eyes
away from the text into their staring yellow-ness.
The mass of advertisements taking up most of the cover page also scream
‘I’m in it for the money!’
It also seems to be heavily biased towards Extreme Programming. While I
love the idea of XP and some of its techniques are a lifesaver for me, I
have a hard time believing that ‘the one true way’ exists and is
‘extreme.’ As with everything else, moderation is the key to success.
In short: They’re scaring off a lot of people before the magazine even
gets read.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:00:13 +0900
“zoat” [email protected] wrote:
Issue #9 of ObjectiveView [pdf], a highly respected on-line journal
has a sort of Ruby Special: lots of articles devoted to Ruby, and
Ruby on Rails.
http://www.ratio.co.uk/objectiveview.html
http://www.ratio.co.uk/ov9pdf.pdf
I won’t reiterate the comments posted by William C., but what I
will say is definitely heed them. I agree with everything he has
said.
As for the issue, it was the first time I had read it, and I quite
liked it. I have often been interested in extreme/pair programming, so
it was nice to see some applications of its use.
As for the Ruby side of things, note that the article by Amy Hoy
contains on or two deprecated uses within Ruby that ought not to have
been allowed to propagate through. (c.f. ‘‘foo.type’’ should be
‘‘foo.class’’). Was she writing that article based on Ruby 1.6.X?
Still, that aside, it ought to give your readership a little bit of an
idea about Ruby.
Was that the sort of feedback you were after, if any, I might add?
– Thomas A.
On 25 Sep 2006, at 13:46, Thomas A. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:00:13 +0900
“zoat” [email protected] wrote:Issue #9 of ObjectiveView [pdf], a highly respected on-line journal
has a sort of Ruby Special: lots of articles devoted to Ruby, and
Ruby on Rails.Was that the sort of feedback you were after, if any, I might add?
I am wondering - why are people talking to a spambot? (Check the
posting history for zoat for confirmation).
Paul
On 9/25/06, Thomas A. [email protected] wrote:
will say is definitely heed them. I agree with everything he has
Still, that aside, it ought to give your readership a little bit of an
idea about Ruby.Was that the sort of feedback you were after, if any, I might add?
None. It seems to be a bot.
Paul L. wrote:
Was that the sort of feedback you were after, if any, I might add?
I am wondering - why are people talking to a spambot? (Check the
posting history for zoat for confirmation).Paul
And I am wondering how a spambot got to be a “member” of our “club”.
On Sep 25, 2006, at 7:46 AM, Thomas A. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:00:13 +0900
“zoat” [email protected] wrote:Issue #9 of ObjectiveView [pdf], a highly respected on-line journal
has a sort of Ruby Special: lots of articles devoted to Ruby, and
Ruby on Rails.
http://www.ratio.co.uk/objectiveview.html
http://www.ratio.co.uk/ov9pdf.pdf
This is very old news. I’m not sure when the issue was released but
the “Welcome to Issue 9” page has a February 2006 date at the bottom.
As for the Ruby side of things, note that the article by Amy Hoy
contains on or two deprecated uses within Ruby that ought not to have
been allowed to propagate through. (c.f. ‘‘foo.type’’ should be
‘‘foo.class’’). Was she writing that article based on Ruby 1.6.X?
Still, that aside, it ought to give your readership a little bit of an
idea about Ruby.
Yes, I sent Amy a list of suggested improvements when the article was
originally published. I’m pretty sure she intended to post
corrections on her blog, but I don’t believe she ever got around to it:
http://www.slash7.com/articles/2006/3/2/a-not-so-objective-view-of-ruby
James Edward G. II
Paul L. wrote:
I am wondering - why are people talking to a spambot? (Check the
posting history for zoat for confirmation).Paul
Because… I… Um…
Okay, it fooled me. -sigh-
100.times { puts “I will not talk to spambots.” }
On Sep 25, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Paul L. wrote:
Was that the sort of feedback you were after, if any, I might add?
I am wondering - why are people talking to a spambot? (Check the
posting history for zoat for confirmation).
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/17a068913ce02cef
James Edward G. II
On 9/25/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
Ruby on Rails.
And I am wondering how a spambot got to be a “member” of our “club”.
Maybe I am in a very bad shape here, but this is not a joke, right?
Would it be so difficult to subscribe and than use the posting address
from
a BOT?
Forgive me if I am stupid, I mean, no, it is not a sin or crime to be
stupid, Do Not Forgive me if I am stupid,
ahh that’s me again 
Cheers
Robert
–
Deux choses sont infinies : l’univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l’univers, je n’en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.
- Albert Einstein