Ruby Cookbook

Ruby
41

On 8/6/06, James B. [email protected] wrote:

Robert E. wrote:

Is it to prevent some sort of brand dilution for Ruby?

No. I believe the intention is to prevent nubies from looking dopey
when asking questions or discussing the language. Referring to the
language as “RUBY” suggests that the speaker knows very, very little
about Ruby.

In a sentence, that may hold, but in a title or a banner it is common to
have all letters capitalized.
A quick search on the net I found:

python
Python
PYTHON
php
PHP
Perl
PERL
perl

most of which I think are were used correctly.

I used to work for a company that mandated all caps be used on all
presentations. Hence, when I taught a Ruby course, I ignored the rule,
but
when presenting to upper management, I SPELLED RUBY IN ALL CAPS, BUT SO
WAS
ALL THE OTHER TEXT.

Calling Ruby RUBY can be annoying, but if in a title that is all caps,
it is
ok. If Ruby ™ is really serious about the name, a standard will be
presented showing fonts, sizes, colors, shades of gray, etc that are
acceptable forms of the Ruby name.

Seems to me RUBY ROUCS was being used in a title. And BTW, did anyone
catch
the ending date of the conference? The whole thing appears to be someone
having some fun. Let them have their fun.

Besides, I thought we were programmers, not trademark layers.

42

On Aug 6, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Christian N. wrote:

Yeah, but pure FO just doesn’t hack the book stuff (and indexing is a
serious, serious hack… :slight_smile:

I consider FO an output format here, of course you need a toolchain to
generate it.

Oh

43

On Aug 6, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Daniel M. wrote:

One thing I don’t like is that the colorizer they use seems to screw
up when coloring XML - take a look at the sample chapter from “Data
Crunching”, for example. It can’t handle tag names that contain
dashes, apparently.

Strange–it should do: I remember fixing that.

44

To all Ruby afficianados

RUBY ROUC is not a joke It is not affiliated with Ruby either.
I will thank anyone who bothers to check the evidence before issuing
theories about an independent conference.
I love to make things humorous which is why the conference continues
for those
who have the fortitude ( i hope the number is zero ) to meditate on
ruby until Dec 31.

You have permission to spell my name AGSC agsc Augustus gustavious
salvatore Calabrese
gus Gus or you can call me Sam although I probably won’t know who you
are talking to.

Check out my resume at
http://omegadogs.com/resume/gsc_resume.htm

Note that the registration has a money back guarantee.
Why would anyone trust me to not take the money and run ?
Living in Colorado for 55 years years demonstrates my basic non-
running nature.
I will ponder further on how to reassure those Gray IIs and Britts

Sundance and Slamdance are still my best example of something similar.

( except I am not competing with the Ruby conference, I am offering
additional possibilities )

AGSC

45

Keith F. [email protected] writes:

I’ll strongly disagree with this. Pure FO is more than ready to handle
complex technical books. If you’d like to see what it’s capable of,
pick up a copy of Unicode Explained
(Unicode Explained [Book]) or the forthcoming PHP
Cookbook 2e (PHP Cookbook, 2nd Edition [Book]) or Rails Cookbook
(Rails Cookbook [Book]) [the paper, not the Rough
Cut version], all of which were/will be produced from XSL-FO and look
quite good.

Do you know which FO formatter they use?

For those interested in (a lot) more, see:
DocBook XSL: The Complete Guide.

PS: CSS, on the other hand, is not ready for high-quality typesetting,
as the others have said.

Is there a CSS to FO translator?

46

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Christian N. wrote:

Yeah, but pure FO just doesn’t hack the book stuff (and indexing is a
serious, serious hack… :slight_smile:

One day it’ll happen, and we’ll try our best to be there.

I’ll strongly disagree with this. Pure FO is more than ready to handle
complex technical books.

Do you know which FO formatter they use?

We use AntennaHouse. It’s commerical, but all of the others don’t
implement enough of the FO spec(s) to really give you all of the tools
at your disposal.

PS: CSS, on the other hand, is not ready for high-quality typesetting,
as the others have said.

Is there a CSS to FO translator?

Not that I know of, but part of it shouldn’t be entirely impossible. The
more tricky and page-based stuff obviously wouldn’t be covered.

HTH,
Keith

47

Gus S Calabrese wrote:

To all Ruby afficianados

RUBY ROUC is not a joke It is not affiliated with Ruby either.

If RUBY isn’t Ruby, what does it refer to? And why are you posting
about RUBY to a Ruby mailing list?

Hal

48

On 8/6/06, Gus S Calabrese [email protected] wrote:

Check out my resume at
http://omegadogs.com/resume/gsc_resume.htm

Gus really likes to hammer I guess:

“Hammering!!! (H+)”

49

On Saturday 05 August 2006 9:23 pm, Dave T. wrote:

It’s probably “just too much work”. And I don’t know of a CSS
solution that does really high-quality typesetting. (With XSL-FO,
that’s different, but even less people know this.)

Yeah, but pure FO just doesn’t hack the book stuff (and indexing is a
serious, serious hack… :slight_smile:

One day it’ll happen, and we’ll try our best to be there.

I’ll strongly disagree with this. Pure FO is more than ready to handle
complex technical books. If you’d like to see what it’s capable of,
pick up a copy of Unicode Explained
(Unicode Explained [Book]) or the forthcoming PHP
Cookbook 2e (PHP Cookbook, 2nd Edition [Book]) or Rails Cookbook
(Rails Cookbook [Book]) [the paper, not the Rough
Cut version], all of which were/will be produced from XSL-FO and look
quite good.

For those interested in (a lot) more, see:
DocBook XSL: The Complete Guide.

PS: CSS, on the other hand, is not ready for high-quality typesetting,
as the others have said.

HTH,
Keith

50

On 8/6/06, Gus S Calabrese [email protected] wrote:

RUBY ROUC is not a joke

Gus, I understand what you’re wanting to do. The way that you’ve
approached this, however, does have some people wondering about the
ability to follow through. The language is “Ruby,” as you’ve noted, so
the title of the conference should be:

Ruby for the Rest of Us Conference 2006

which would still leave RUBY ROUC as a semi-valid short name. I don’t
fault your enthusiasm, but I think that you underestimate how much
planning goes into a successful conference, and little has been done to
counteract the slapdash feel to this. I don’t know what the budget and
planning for the first Slamdance festival was, but I suspect that it was
planned a little more carefully than this appears to be planned so far.

So why don’t you calm down, take a breath, and then rewrite the pages
surrounding the ROUC. Stop including unnecessary personal references and
attacks on people who are extremely well regarded in the Ruby
community. Attacks on them, when they’ve been extremely calm in pointing
out that the use of “RUBY” isn’t appropriate when referring to the
language will win you no friends.

A conference can be low-budget and still be successful without appearing
slapdash. You may like having the humour, but I would plan a little more
carefully before making the grand announcements that you’ve made.
Otherwise, your first conference may be your last conference as well,
because people will talk about how well the conference was managed.
Badly managed conferences don’t last.

Best of luck to hosting a “Rest of Us…” conference; you might even
want to look at the unconference[1] model for what you’re wanting to do.
For that, though, a theatre presentation model definitely won’t work. I
almost certainly guarantee that people will want Internet access during
the conference, and that people will want time and space to chat during
sessions that they’re not interested in. Are you ready for that?

-austin
[1] Unconference - Wikipedia

51

For those who want to make a presentation about Ruby in 2006
For presenters who want to have their presentation seen by more Ruby
afficianados
For Ruby civilians who want to come out to Denver and kick tires with
other Rubyists.
For anyone who is bummed that the 2006 Ruby conference is completely
filled …

go to the RUBY ROUC URL
http://nope9.com/projects-axxx/tiki-index.php?page=A326

questions, comments, snipes, offers of help, presenters, can contact
me at
[email protected] or [email protected]

I will definitely make changes based on the interests of attendees

Registration is $75.

Gus S Calabrese
Denver, CO
720 222 1309 303 908 7716 cell
Please include and do not limit yourself to “spam2006”. I allow
everything with “spam2006” in the subject or text to pass my spam
filters.

52

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 06:49 +0900, Keith F. wrote:

We use AntennaHouse. It’s commerical, but all of the others don’t
implement enough of the FO spec(s) to really give you all of the tools
at your disposal.

I’ve been using Altsoft’s Xml2PDF. The price is reasonable, it’s fast,
and it’s easy to run it from the command line.

Yours,

Tom

53

The “Ruby Cookbook” by Lucas Carlson and Leonard Richardson has just
been made available in PDF form for 1/2 price of the printed copy.

This is an excellent 906 page reference covering all aspects of Ruby
development.

I already had the paper book, but I just purchased and downloaded the
PDF too.
I really like having the combination. Paper for the easy chair, PDF on
my laptop for weightless reference while I’m working at the coffee shop.

– Mike B.

54

Jim M. wrote:

No its not available anymore as a rough cut, and I agree this book would
be much more useful as a
PDF than a paper book IMHO. (Especially those of us with dual monitors!)

I’ll wait for a PDF book from another publisher I think, as O’Reilly
seems to not like the PDF
format, maybe they should look at how well the pragmatic programmers are
doing :wink:

A little OT, but just to mention that my PDF experience improved quite a
lot after switching to this tiny and free PDF reader
Free PDF Reader & Viewer - Online Download | Foxit Software (for Windows)

Adobe Acrobat Reader is soooooo… slow?