What is your favourite IDE?

Ruby
81

We use the ruby-debug-base.rb and ruby-debug.so, and call it like any
other Ruby
library. This way people can install an upgrade and Komodo should
just work
with the new .so, assuming no compatibility breakage. I wouldn’t say
there’s too much
duplication – you just have to implement a callback class to handle
the ruby-debug
events.

  • Eric
82

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:45:22AM +0900, Jeremy T. wrote:

Without hijacking this thread and making it about prototype
languages, I really do find statements like this cute (not
necessarily funny, but cute). While Ruby’s Classes (and Smalltalk’s
too) are just objects, it seems weird to me to separate the two
concepts. So any statement like that makes me wonder what kind of
exposure to object-oriented languages one has–or rather, lack of
exposure to many.

That sounds slightly condescending.

I haven’t dealt with object oriented programming in a great many
languages. I’ve run up against it in C++, Object Pascal, Objective C,
PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, and VB, at least. I may have forgotten a
couple. I happen to like Ruby’s more than Obj-C’s, which I tend to like
more than that of any of the rest of the languages I’ve mentioned (as
far as I recall – I don’t remember OOP in Object Pascal much, for
instance). I like the general structure of OOP in Python more than any
of the rest of them except Ruby, but I dislike Python in general, so it
loses out.

Does that give you a clearer idea of where my comments are arising?

83

On 17-Apr-07, at 5:06 PM, Chad P. wrote:

I must agree that, judging by my own experience, Ruby really does

That sounds slightly condescending.

Yeah, I know. My apologies.

so it
loses out.

Does that give you a clearer idea of where my comments are arising?

Yup, it was just as suspected – not one single prototype language in
that bunch; I might suggest if you enjoy languages, you check out one
or two. Javascript is one, though not necessarily the most robust. Io
is another, though very young. Prototype languages have spoiled me
with the whole “use objects like classes if you want, but we’re not
going to make you do it that way” philosophy. I tend to find a lot of
the Ruby code I write these days reflects that style, as it’s
conceptually easier to understand in my opinion.

84

On 4/15/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:

Does anyone actually use (or even know where to find) “just vi” any more?

Yes. Most commercial Unixes come with “just vi” preinstalled.

85

On 2007-04-17 17:06:22 -0400, Chad P. [email protected] said:

I haven’t dealt with object oriented programming in a great many
languages. I’ve run up against it in C++, Object Pascal, Objective C,
PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, and VB, at least. I may have forgotten a
couple. I happen to like Ruby’s more than Obj-C’s, which I tend to like
more than that of any of the rest of the languages I’ve mentioned (as
far as I recall – I don’t remember OOP in Object Pascal much, for
instance). I like the general structure of OOP in Python more than any
of the rest of them except Ruby, but I dislike Python in general, so it
loses out.

Does that give you a clearer idea of where my comments are arising?

It was incredibly condescending, for what it’s worth, in addition to
being wrong-headed. Prototype-oriented languages are overwhelmingly
outnumbered by class-oriented OO languages.

That’s not to say that prototype-oriented languages aren’t neat. IO[1]
is one; TADS[2] is another, understandably not often considered (given
its limited scope). I’ve been playing with IO quite a bit the past few
days and, frankly, I’m just about in love it.

(There are no classes, and no inheritance; objects are cloned from
other objects and modified as necessary.)

Best,
James

[1] http://www.iolanguage.com/about/
[2] http://www.tads.org/

86

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 08:00:07AM +0900, James C. wrote:

That’s not to say that prototype-oriented languages aren’t neat. IO[1]
is one; TADS[2] is another, understandably not often considered (given
its limited scope). I’ve been playing with IO quite a bit the past few
days and, frankly, I’m just about in love it.

(There are no classes, and no inheritance; objects are cloned from
other objects and modified as necessary.)

That sounds really interesting. I may have to look into that sooner
than I expected I would – but still probably not this year, alas. I
already have too many other programming learning projects lined up in
front of me, including reading at least five books about three different
languages (one being about Ruby). That’s a lot to take in, but the New
Year’s resolution must be obeyed.

87

hi Dan,
try using easy Eclipse for ruby…comes with built in support for ruby
and
rails…need not install ruby plugin for the elipse
ciao
-AG

88

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:53:53AM +0900, Jeremy T. wrote:

any
with the whole “use objects like classes if you want, but we’re not
going to make you do it that way” philosophy. I tend to find a lot of
the Ruby code I write these days reflects that style, as it’s
conceptually easier to understand in my opinion.

I know a bit of Javascript, but not enough to have done any real OOP in
the language. Just enough to do a whole lot of web development (the
“right” way, with most program logic on the server rather than the
client). I’ve been meaning to get more immersed in ECMAScript at some
point, but there are a number of other languages ahead of it in line for
me right now. Io is going to have to wait even longer.

Currently, my “next learning project” stuff is mostly functional in
nature – improving my understanding of UCBLogo as part of actually
finishing the “Computer Science Logo Style” trilogy of university texts
and increasing my grok of Objective Caml seem to be the almost certain
next two languages. Achieving some kind of real competence with either
Common Lisp or Scheme strikes me as something I’m likely to pursue
sooner rather than later – some implementation of ECMAScript 4 will
probably be after that. Of course, Perl 6 will be fit into my schedule
somewhere along the way, after it starts appearing in release candidate
forms.

If you have other suggestions of prototype-based OO languages that you
think I’d like to fit into the schedule sooner, I’m open to suggestions.

89

On Apr 17, 12:42 pm, Martin K. [email protected]
wrote:

    m.

We’ll be shipping the full code for the dbgp-based debugger in the
next beta
for Komodo 4.1. You’ll need to check the license before you reuse
it. The
current Ruby debugger allows reuse under the same terms as the Ruby
license,
and I expect that will continue.

  • Eric
90

Eric P. wrote:

together on those backends. E.g. in the Rubyforge’s debug-commons project :wink:

    m.

We’ll be shipping the full code for the dbgp-based debugger in the
next beta
for Komodo 4.1. You’ll need to check the license before you reuse
it. The
current Ruby debugger allows reuse under the same terms as the Ruby
license,
and I expect that will continue.

Thanks for the info Eric. I would contact you before doing anything
related to dbgp-based debugger about possible cooperation. The
debug-commons is young but in the future we would like to get together
as much ruby-debug works as possible.

m.

PS: I think that DLTK people also doing something similar, dbgp based
ruby-debug.

91

Chad P. [email protected] writes:

more than that of any of the rest of the languages I’ve mentioned (as
that bunch; I might suggest if you enjoy languages, you check out one
client). I’ve been meaning to get more immersed in ECMAScript at some
probably be after that. Of course, Perl 6 will be fit into my schedule
somewhere along the way, after it starts appearing in release candidate
forms.

Since you mentioned common lisp, I would highly recommend looking at
CLOS
(Common Lisp Object System). I found it a very refreshing approach and
extremely convienient/fast to develop in. It is one of those things that
made
me a little excited, but at the same time, I felt it would take me years
before
I really appreciated the power it presented. I’ve found it a fun way to
prototype and experiment with ideas.

Tim

92

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 11:45:09AM +0900, Tim X wrote:

Since you mentioned common lisp, I would highly recommend looking at CLOS
(Common Lisp Object System). I found it a very refreshing approach and
extremely convienient/fast to develop in. It is one of those things that made
me a little excited, but at the same time, I felt it would take me years before
I really appreciated the power it presented. I’ve found it a fun way to
prototype and experiment with ideas.

Thanks – I’m sure I’ll want to learn about CLOS as part of learning
Common Lisp. I’ve heard only good things about it.

93

have u tried using e-texteditor. It is like textmate but for windows.
cool
for ruby coding

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 3:55 AM, ChrisKaelin [email protected]

94

I agree e text editor is great. I just wish there was a Linux version.

95

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

Actually, the blog states that there is one in the works:

Last sentence.

Regards,
Florian G.

On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Zundra D. wrote:

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 3:55 AM, ChrisKaelin <[email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgN+HYACgkQJA/zY0IIRZaDkwCeLD4FjfPGfJLWKtusdbgE2l+x
lqQAn0RYTexEd0m4kQ1ig3V7pSy73/rI
=ac+p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----