Ruby info


#1

Why isn’t there a ruby node within info? Will there ever be one or is
it not a worthwhile project?


John M.
07739 171 531
MSc (DIC)

Timezone: GMT


#2

john maclean wrote:

Why isn’t there a ruby node within info? Will there ever be one or is
it not a worthwhile project?

What do you mean? a ruby.info site? grab it and run with it if you like!


#3

Phlip wrote:

john maclean wrote:

Why isn’t there a ruby node within info? Will there ever be one or is
it not a worthwhile project?

What do you mean? a ruby.info site? grab it and run with it if you like!

I think he means ‘info ruby’ much like ‘man ruby’ although, when I type
‘info ruby’ I get a response! It exists for me.

=======================================================================
This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended
addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be
the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or
lost by reason of this transmission.
If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our
apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no
other act on the email.
Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been
altered or corrupted during transmission.


#4

2009/2/23 Michael M. removed_email_address@domain.invalid:

‘info ruby’ I get a response! It exists for me.
altered or corrupted during transmission.

OK info ruby is pretty much the same as man ruby. Compare that to
info awk or info tar. Those docs are many nodes deep.


John M.
07739 171 531
MSc (DIC)

Timezone: GMT


#5

john maclean wrote:

OK info ruby is pretty much the same as man ruby. Compare that to
info awk or info tar. Those docs are many nodes deep.

This is not a joke: “Google ruby” nearly always works for me!

If I could, I would remove every one of those obsolete systems from my
hard
drives…


#6

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:09:07PM +0900, john maclean wrote:

Why isn’t there a ruby node within info? Will there ever be one or is
it not a worthwhile project?

I like to think it’s because info pages suck.


#7

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:55:14PM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

Nice thing about info pages is that you can open them in a browser
(well, Konqueror, with info:make and so on) and follow links as if they
were html. I never could stand the command-line based info readers, and
the man pages for things like make always refer you to info for full
documentation.

That’s because of a shortcoming in the people of the GNU project, and
not
a shortcoming in manpages. A lot of GNU tools lack decent manpage
documentation because info is a GNU project, and the GNU project suffers
really badly from “Not Invented Here” syndrome. I could say less
polite things, but I should stop.


#8

john maclean wrote:

OK info ruby is pretty much the same as man ruby. Compare that to
info awk or info tar. Those docs are many nodes deep.

Nice thing about info pages is that you can open them in a browser
(well, Konqueror, with info:make and so on) and follow links as if they
were html. I never could stand the command-line based info readers, and
the man pages for things like make always refer you to info for full
documentation.


#9

2009/2/23 Chad P. removed_email_address@domain.invalid:

you."

I’m sure that most people don’t have a problem with ruby buying books,
I have. However Ruby’s sometimes a bit like emacs, a few moments when
you come across something and think “wow - if only I knew that when I
was working on project X”. Dunno how much you can bundle into the
official release without being bloat.


John M.
07739 171 531
MSc (DIC)

Timezone: GMT


#10

Phlip wrote:

john maclean wrote:

OK info ruby is pretty much the same as man ruby. Compare that to
info awk or info tar. Those docs are many nodes deep.

This is not a joke: “Google ruby” nearly always works for me!

I think his question amounts to: “Why isn’t there an official user-guide
bundled with Ruby?”

That’s a good question. Other popular languages, such as Python, Perl,
PHP, come with a good guide. For Ruby, the answer for people asking for
documentation is almost always “buy the XYZ book”.


#11

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:32:21PM +0900, Albert S. wrote:

Phlip wrote:

john maclean wrote:

OK info ruby is pretty much the same as man ruby. Compare that to
info awk or info tar. Those docs are many nodes deep.

This is not a joke: “Google ruby” nearly always works for me!

I think his question amounts to: “Why isn’t there an official user-guide
bundled with Ruby?”

I don’t think so. There’s a difference between “official user guide”
and
“info pages”. I, for one, probably wouldn’t even read the damned
“official user guide” if it was distributed as info pages. It would
almost be less painful to try to reconstruct a user guide by reading the
source than to read it in info pages.

That’s a good question. Other popular languages, such as Python, Perl,
PHP, come with a good guide. For Ruby, the answer for people asking for
documentation is almost always “buy the XYZ book”.

Yes – that’s unfortunate. Just please don’t provide it (solely) as
info pages. Please?