Ruby Pocket Reference

I picked up the new OREILLY book Ruby Pocket Reference today, by
Michael Fitzgerald.
I’ve got to say, it keeps with the high quality of almost every
Ruby / Rails book out there!
A nice little tomb that fits in your back pocket and actually has
things pretty well organized and answers those little things that you
might forget. It even has nice little glossary at the end. I highly
recommend this little friend for Ruby newbies!
(and Rails people, too!)
Sometimes it’s easier and more convenient to use a little book like
this than ‘ri’ for everything.

Just can’t understand why they put a giraffe on this one? Perl’s
camel has become a big part of it’s image, but there just hasn’t yet
been an animal on a Ruby book that made sense.

On 27 Aug 2007, at 14:39, John J. wrote:

Just can’t understand why they put a giraffe on this one? Perl’s
camel has become a big part of it’s image, but there just hasn’t
yet been an animal on a Ruby book that made sense.

AFAIK the Perl Camel originated from the ‘Programming Perl’ book. It
doesn’t make any more (or less!) sense than a giraffe for Ruby!

Alex G.

Bioinformatics Center
Kyoto University

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:39:53 +0900, John J. wrote:

Just can’t understand why they put a giraffe on this one? Perl’s
camel has become a big part of it’s image, but there just hasn’t yet
been an animal on a Ruby book that made sense.

Because they put animals on almost every book. The “camel book” comes
from that as beeing a short reference to “Programming Perl” and not
because programming or perl has something got to do with camels. If they
would have put an eagle on it, “Programming Perl” would be known today
as
the “eagle book”. But they just put a camel on it like they put a
giraffe
on the ruby book you mentioned. Just like that.

Thomas

On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Thomas W. wrote:

would have put an eagle on it, “Programming Perl” would be known
today as
the “eagle book”. But they just put a camel on it like they put a
giraffe
on the ruby book you mentioned. Just like that.

Indeed, the “eagle book” is the one about mod_perl, and the “llama
book” is “Learning Perl”. Incidentally Ruby has the “Pickaxe” due to
the same reason, a pickaxe in the cover, though in this case you
usually don’t append “book” when you refer to it.

– fxn

On Aug 27, 3:58 am, Thomas W. [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:39:53 +0900, John J. wrote:

Just can’t understand why they put a giraffe on this one? Perl’s
camel has become a big part of it’s image, but there just hasn’t yet
been an animal on a Ruby book that made sense.

Because they put animals on almost every book.

Since the item most associated with Ruby is a pickaxe (due to the book
Programming Ruby), the appropriate O’Reilly animal should be whatever
animal is known as “nature’s pickaxe”. I guess that’s the giraffe. :wink:

But ruby already has animals.
The cartoon foxes and blixie the cat.

No, I’m not that dense, I know OREILLY chooses random animals at
times, but sometimes they get a kind of them going with the animals
for a language. (camel, llama… )
Maybe it just seems that way… coincidental things…
Same guy’s Learning R. book has the same giraffe with a baby one
too on the cover.
oh well, I was hoping there would be some more interesting info
behind this stuff.

Maybe my mind just sees patterns where there are none. I seriously
always visualize the cover of Programming Perl when I see or hear
‘camel caps’/‘camel case’. When I see the book cover, I think of
camel-case words…

On 8/27/07, Todd B. [email protected] wrote:

I think we need to adopt Toto from The W.ard of Oz as the official Ruby
animal.

Todd

Because we need more people thinking rubyists are hopeless dreamers,
living in la la land?

Kyle S. wrote:

On 8/27/07, Todd B. [email protected] wrote:

I think we need to adopt Toto from The W.ard of Oz as the official Ruby
animal.

Because we need more people thinking rubyists are hopeless dreamers,
living in la la land?

What’s wrong with being a hopeless dreamer?

I could have gone nasty and said because Ruby performs like a dog, but I
didn’t.

Toto was a cool dog. And, of course, that whole movie is about the Ruby
slippers.

I think the giraffes are what they’ve assigned to Ruby for some
reason. Doesn’t “Learning R.” also have giraffes?

I think the cookbooks have dogs/wolves/dingos. So, what are they
trying to say? We have freakishly huge necks and the mange? JERKS.

–Jeremy

On 8/27/07, John J. [email protected] wrote:

always visualize the cover of Programming Perl when I see or hear
‘camel caps’/‘camel case’. When I see the book cover, I think of
camel-case words…


http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My free Ruby e-book:
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/

John J. wrote:

oh well, I was hoping there would be some more interesting info
behind this stuff.

Maybe my mind just sees patterns where there are none. I seriously
always visualize the cover of Programming Perl when I see or hear
‘camel caps’/‘camel case’. When I see the book cover, I think of
camel-case words…

I think we need to adopt Toto from The W.ard of Oz as the official Ruby
animal.

Todd

On 8/27/07, Kyle S. [email protected] wrote:

No, that our heads are in the clouds :wink:
No, that we have long reach.

Todd

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Todd B. wrote:

No, that our heads are in the clouds :wink:

No, that we have long reach.

Todd

Stick your neck out! Learn Ruby!

Incidentally, another name for a giraffe is Cameleopard :wink:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG04L18fKMegVjSM8RAtxyAKDCVO+dRgtgja2P3sa62+QPi+drgQCgxqGk
jnjChnYOQTd5ZuYw14bj1Nw=
=r4f+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

ok, so aside from the importance of the animal (!) … what do folks
think
of the actual contents of this reference? Worth having? Accurate?

On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Esmail wrote:

ok, so aside from the importance of the animal (!) … what do folks
think
of the actual contents of this reference? Worth having? Accurate?

I, for one, am terribly disappointed in what appears to be a lack of
a digital version. I routinely use digital versions (PDF preferably)
of pocket guides for quick references.

Corey

On 8/27/07, Jeremy McAnally [email protected] wrote:

I think the giraffes are what they’ve assigned to Ruby for some
reason. Doesn’t “Learning R.” also have giraffes?

I think the cookbooks have dogs/wolves/dingos. So, what are they
trying to say? We have freakishly huge necks and the mange? JERKS.

–Jeremy

No, that our heads are in the clouds :wink:

Jeremy McAnally schrieb:

I think the giraffes are what they’ve assigned to Ruby for some
reason. Doesn’t “Learning R.” also have giraffes?

I think the cookbooks have dogs/wolves/dingos. So, what are they
trying to say? We have freakishly huge necks and the mange? JERKS.

Not to forget the billy goat on Ruby in a Nutshell
ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/graphics/book_covers/hi-res/0596002149.jpg

What say us this? scapegoat?

Regards
Jan

Ruby in a Nutshell is still interesting, but a bit out of date.

the pocket reference is just the thing to have around for quickie
lookups.
Pretty good little book.

On 8/28/07, Corey J. [email protected] wrote:

On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Esmail wrote:

ok, so aside from the importance of the animal (!) … what do folks
think
of the actual contents of this reference? Worth having? Accurate?

I, for one, am terribly disappointed in what appears to be a lack of
a digital version. I routinely use digital versions (PDF preferably)
of pocket guides for quick references.

Just wait a couple of weeks and it’ll appear on oreilly.com, as they
wait a bit to publish the PDF version.

Keith

Hey, this is funny –

On, 2007-August-28 00:08:08, Jeremy McAnally wrote:

I think the giraffes are what they’ve assigned to Ruby for some
reason.

it reminds me of Marshall Rosenberg’s “non-violent communication”,
where the giraffe and the jackal/wolf are being used as a metaphor
for different communication approaches.

Doesn’t “Learning R.” also have giraffes?

I think the cookbooks have dogs/wolves/dingos. So, what are they
trying to say? We have freakishly huge necks and the mange? JERKS.

In this context, I am really quite happy that they have chosen the
giraffe…
:slight_smile:
Yes, and in general, I don’t like cookbooks anyway…
:slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Regards
Sven

(Rosenberg example: http://www.cnvc.org/anger.htm)

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs