Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0

On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:09 PM, ts wrote:

Guy Decoux

That is amazing. You’ve taken RTFM to a whole new level. I like it. :slight_smile:

On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [email protected] wrote:

Austin Z. wrote:

It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of
email messages and without being asinine. It still doesn’t belong on
the official Ruby webpage.

So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from
some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website?

Get a clue and stop being so arrogant.

Good advice. Instead of giving it, maybe you should take it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bruby+%2B"Austin+Ziegler"

Austin Z. wrote:

The Ruby web pages should primarily talk about production releases.
Not future releases. The folks beind Ruby aren’t into vapourware the
way that Microsoft is.

Lovely thread…

For a minute I thought there was a point in there. But I’m not sure.

I think there is something more that can be done with general
documentation of
the current Production Ruby language. I also realize that A) this is
really
boring and B) by the time the ink dries it is probably out of date.

That said:

I’m not at a point where I would consider it safe for me to start
putting
together “official” rDoc publications or modifying the files themselves
but
what/how does the Ruby documentation project get things done? (probably
another
mailing but still valid here).

I’ve written over 5 lines of code, so that makes me something of an
expert
according to this thread. However, 100 lines probably doesn’t move me
very far
up the food chain.

But I still need docs and I spent most of last night reading the source
for dbi
trying to figure out what methods I could call and what was returned.
Glad it’s
open code, but I did find the documentation a bit lacking.

What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for
the community?

On Friday 16 June 2006 7:58 pm, Tom A. wrote:

But I still need docs and I spent most of last night reading the source for
dbi trying to figure out what methods I could call and what was returned.
Glad it’s open code, but I did find the documentation a bit lacking.

What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for the
community?

For the most part, suggestions aren’t what is needed. Time and effort
is.
Contribute some documentation in some area that seems lacking. The
effort
will be appreciated.

I’ll make you an offer. If you send to me some additional documentation
for
DBI, I will make sure it gets uploaded and made available for others to
use.

Kirk H.

On 6/16/06, Tom A. [email protected] wrote:

boring and B) by the time the ink dries it is probably out of date.
You’re right. And what you may not be seeing – because it’s, as you
said, Really Boring – is that there are people who are contributing
increasing levels of documentation to Ruby where it counts: in ri.
There’s a Summer of Code project that will bring enhancements to
rannotate (think php.net-style documentation for Ruby). There’s a new
visual identity happening soon, and I think that we’re going to see a
lot of really good stuff there, as well as increasing documentation
and relevant links to the various places where documentation can be
found (articles at Artima’s Ruby Code & Style, the O’Reilly Ruby blog,
James B.'s ruby-doc.org, etc.). It’s just a matter that all of this
work is being done mostly by people in their (cough-cough) copious
free time.

I’m not at a point where I would consider it safe for me to start putting
together “official” rDoc publications or modifying the files themselves but
what/how does the Ruby documentation project get things done? (probably another
mailing but still valid here).

You find a piece of code that you think is under-documented and you
document it. Preferably, you tell people that you’re documenting this,
and then when it’s done, you provide a universal patch (diff -u) for
your changed documentation. If you’re document a C file, you update
the .document file, too – but I’m not too sure about that. :wink:

I’ve written over 5 lines of code, so that makes me something of an expert
according to this thread. However, 100 lines probably doesn’t move me very far
up the food chain.

That was exasperation, but there is a point where I’d much rather
work with people who ask me “hey, this seems weak – what can I do to
help” than people who say “well, this ought to be this way.” Expecting
others to do it for them. Or expecting things that just aren’t
realistic.

But I still need docs and I spent most of last night reading the source for dbi
trying to figure out what methods I could call and what was returned. Glad it’s
open code, but I did find the documentation a bit lacking.

I’d talk to the folks behind the revitalized DBI project. That’s
actually separate from Ruby itself. I don’t know your background,
but that sometimes surprises PHP people, who are used to having all of
this handed to them as part of the “language.”

What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for the community?

Changes. Positive criticism. Even things like “How do I establish a
connection with Ruby DBI over Oracle with Instant Client and not set
ORACLE_HOME”? That may get someone thinking and providing an answer.
Add things to wikis if you find them. Questions are good.
Pronouncements that something is suboptimal … aren’t. :wink:

-austin

Hi,

In message “Re: Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0”
on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:27:23 +0900, Alex N. [email protected]
writes:

|> That is amazing. You’ve taken RTFM to a whole new level. I like it. :slight_smile:
|
|Yeah, although it makes me look dumb, I like it :slight_smile:

And that’s what we feel everytime.

						matz.

Hi,

In message “Re: Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0”
on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:21:33 +0900, Reggie Mr [email protected]
writes:

|So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from
|some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website?

Yes, in a sense. Ruby 1.9 is so quick to change, it’d be our burden
to keep track of “what’s new” organized and updated. The page in
www.eigenclass.org is a nice one, certainly not an idiot’s work. I
appreciate it very much. If you want to know the detail, You can
inspect the ChangeLog, from

http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/#dirlist

						matz.

On 6/16/06, Reggie Mr [email protected] wrote:

Austin Z. wrote:

It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of
email messages and without being asinine. It still doesn’t belong on
the official Ruby webpage.
So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from
some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website?

When that blog is from Mauricio F. (who is most certainly not
an idiot), you’d do best to read it. Given that 1.9 is not an
official release, but a development sandbox, I think that it’s
entirely reasonable that the information about what is in it is not
on the Ruby website. Otherwise, people who haven’t got a clue would
start deploying on Ruby 1.9 and then update … and find their code
doesn’t work because they started depending on test features.

This isn’t being arrogant, Reggie. This is being realistic. Ruby 1.9
is not a production Ruby. I expect information on it to be somewhat
out of date and from sources who are extremely interested in it and
intimately involved in its development process. I expect that the
information on Ruby 1.8 will be complete.

Get a clue and stop being so arrogant.

I’m not being arrogant. I’m just thinking you’re asking for something
that is unreasonable. And that you’re being asinine about that
request.

You have turned a simple request into a large nothing!

The Ruby web pages should primarily talk about production releases.
Not future releases. The folks beind Ruby aren’t into vapourware the
way that Microsoft is.

If you don’t like what I’ve said, don’t answer my post.

yawn

-austin

Tom A. wrote:

I’m not at a point where I would consider it safe for me to start
putting together “official” rDoc publications or modifying the files
themselves but what/how does the Ruby documentation project get things
done? (probably another mailing but still valid here).

See:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/status.html

for how to contribute docs and doc patches for the Ruby standard
library.

Additions or changes to the core library docs can be submitted on the
ruby-core mailing list.

There is Yet Another Mailing List for the Ruby Documentation Project.

See: Ruby-Doc.org: Documenting the Ruby Language

Traffic is catatonic. Mostly, people who are writing docs just write
docs, and see that they get committed. Very little discussion, though
contributions are welcome.


James B.

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - The Journal By & For Rubyists
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://yourelevatorpitch.com - Finding Business Focus

Austin Z. wrote:

… as well as increasing documentation
and relevant links to the various places where documentation can be
found (articles at Artima’s Ruby Code & Style, the O’Reilly Ruby blog,
James B.'s ruby-doc.org, etc.).

Just to clarify, I look after ruby-doc.org, but the real work is done by
those providing documentation.


James B.

“In physics the truth is rarely perfectly clear, and that is certainly
universally the case in human affairs. Hence, what is not surrounded
by
uncertainty cannot be the truth.”

  • R. Feynman

Reggie Mr wrote:

Get a clue and stop being so arrogant.
Wow.

“Get a clue and stop being so arrogant.”

TFF.

:slight_smile:


James B.

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - The Journal By & For Rubyists
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://yourelevatorpitch.com - Finding Business Focus

Tom A. wrote:

What constructive suggestions can someone provide to improve this for
the community?

I have to be honest, Ruby isn’t the most well-documented language, from
a newbies point of view. The docs aren’t as tutorial-like as, say, the
PHP manual is. Of course, as other have already said, Ruby doesn’t get
documented by itself – help is appreciated.

I’d like to see a “manual” on ruby-lang.org, one that shares the visual
identity of the main site. Preferably without the use of frames.

Could a little tweaking of rDoc make that happen? If so, I may be able
to cook up some usable and relatively accessible XHTML and CSS, though I
have to say I’m not much of a graphics artist, so I might need some help
with that, unless we’re going completely minimalistic.

Cheers,
Daniel

Yukihiro M. wrote:

Yes, in a sense. Ruby 1.9 is so quick to change, it’d be our burden
to keep track of “what’s new” organized and updated. The page in
www.eigenclass.org is a nice one, certainly not an idiot’s work. I
appreciate it very much. If you want to know the detail, You can
inspect the ChangeLog, from

http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/#dirlist

It does need to up-to-date 100% of the time.
But the ruby website needs to say something about what’s going on and
whats coming.

Most software companies inform the user base about the next latest and
greatest to come.

And the comment about it possibly being vaperware doesn’t really matter
when it comes to opensource.
Everyone knows that all work could just stop because of lack of
resources.

Thoses are the risk that everyone must understand when dealing with
opensource.

Thanks

On Jun 17, 2006, at 13:00, Reggie Mr wrote:

It does need to up-to-date 100% of the time.
The changelog is, by definition, up to date 100% of the time.

As for the rest, I think you have your answer, and continuing your
little tantrum isn’t likely to get you very far.

I’m curious, though, do you even know who it is you’re corresponding
with on here? Google’s your friend in this regard, despite the
strange aversion you seem to have for doing anything for yourself.

matthew smillie.

Hi,

In message “Re: Whats new/fixed in Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0”
on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:00:15 +0900, Reggie Mr [email protected]
writes:

|Everyone knows that all work could just stop because of lack of
|resources.
|
|Thoses are the risk that everyone must understand when dealing with
|opensource.

The improved documentation is marvelous, if it happens. We made the
official web site, we made www.ruby-doc.org, etc. We still admit for
the space for improvement. To achieve it, we need motivation, and
contribution. Your complain nor accuse for our laziness does not help
improvement. Because we already know what you’ve said.

						matz.

Austin Z. wrote:

When that blog is from Mauricio F. (who is most certainly not
an idiot), you’d do best to read it. Given that 1.9 is not an
official release, but a development sandbox,

I don’t know Mauricio F. and shouldn’t need to know him to find
out information on Ruby 1.9…it simple should be a link on the Ruby
website.

I think that it’s
entirely reasonable that the information about what is in it is not
on the Ruby website. Otherwise, people who haven’t got a clue would
start deploying on Ruby 1.9 and then update … and find their code
doesn’t work because they started depending on test features.

You’ve got to be kidding me!!
I think most developers know what Alpha and Beta software
means…including you.

Matthew S. wrote:

On Jun 17, 2006, at 13:00, Reggie Mr wrote:

It does need to up-to-date 100% of the time.
The changelog is, by definition, up to date 100% of the time.

This was a typo, it should have read…“It does NOT need to be
up-to-date 100% of the time.”

Sorry for the mixup there…

Matthew S. wrote:

I’m curious, though, do you even know who it is you’re corresponding
with on here?
Why should it matter, if I don’t agree with what they are say, I could
care less who they are.

As far as Mauricio F., this is what I found…doesn’t seem
relavant.
http://www.promesa.org/leadership/docs/Fernandez.html

As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t come from the official Ruby website
it’s difficult to say with any certainty that the information you are
reading can be trusted.

Reggie;

I’m going to try to help you out while being as civil as possible;
however, with that said, I feel it necessary to point out a disturbing
pattern occurring in the majority of threads in which you have
participated.

As others have stated above, you have a tendency to get combative with
people and show others a general lack of respect. That in and of
itself is unacceptable behavior, but moreover, the people you are
arguing with have put a lot of work into the tools you seem to be
taking for granted. It is not good etiquette on your part to belittle
their efforts.

Austin Z. wrote:

It’s pretty easy to find the information without searching miles of
email messages and without being asinine. It still doesn’t belong on
the official Ruby webpage.
So you think it’s best for people to read about what’s new in 1.9 from
some idiots blog than from the official Ruby website?
[…]
As far as Mauricio F., this is what I found…doesn’t seem
relavant.
http://www.promesa.org/leadership/docs/Fernandez.html

It is extremely relevant. He has contributed to this community far
more than you have sir. In either case, you have no right to resort
to name calling–trust me, it only serves to make you look like a
fool.

As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t come from the official Ruby website
it’s difficult to say with any certainty that the information you are
reading can be trusted.

You should try to learn how useful things are on your own. Use your
mind and evaluate the source for yourself. This will prevent you from
missing out on a great amount of useful information.

Get a clue and stop being so arrogant.

Please take your own advice Reggie. It is horribly bad form to come
into a community and start telling others how things should be done.

You have turned a simple request into a large nothing!

No, they are rightfully getting upset at you for your poor behavior.

If you don’t like what I’ve said, don’t answer my post.

You will find that if you continue to conduct yourself in the current
manor, you will get exactly what you’ve asked for.

For the others on the list, I’d like to apologize for the off-topic
post. All of your efforts are greatly appreciated. Your
contributions are what make ruby (and ruby-talk) as great as they are.

I would like to add something on this topic

I find it most troubling that I do not know right now if 1.9 will become
an
official release. While people arguing around had good reasons to do so,
they thaught, I believe that the fact that I am troubled shall not be
ignored.
Not because I am important, simply because I am a human being -until the
opposit is proven- and it is likely that others feel likewise.

I furthermore believe it is stupid to say something like: “Hey you
really
need a link there or there”
On the other hand I believe it clever, not offensive and correct to ask:
“Could somebody kindly give some evidence about the future development
of
ruby”…
… which I am hereby doing.

I honestly think it would be great if we could get to facts in this
list
again.

BTW it was me who pointed out that there was no link on the ruby home
page.
I did not intend it as crticism, I was just surprised - as I stated -
and
wanted to explain why the link was not indicated by Matthew whome I felt
attacked incorrectly by well I wont tell names.

Cheers
Robert