New presentation on Ruby


#1

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.


#2

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.


#3

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
:wink:

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.


#4

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.


#5

http://bancomicsans.com/

That’s all I have to say about that.

-Augie


#6

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. :slight_smile:


#7

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. :slight_smile:
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 :wink:

Ellie

Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the ‘time’-
dependent asymmetries of phase space.


#8

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§
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.


#9

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 :wink:

Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you’re
looking for?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


#10

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.


#11

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.


#12

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.


#13

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.


#14

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. :slight_smile:

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

Chauk-Mean.


#15

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. :slight_smile:

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

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.


#16

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 :slight_smile: !

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.


#17

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
:wink:

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.


#18
  • 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


#19

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 :wink:

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 :wink:

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains

raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason


#20

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…