Hi, RedCloth watchers. Just wanted to tell you Gaspard and I have agreed on a rewrite plan. We're setting up a project to compare redcloth-treetop and redcloth-regexp and any other alternatives that come along. We'll implement some common features and then ask the Ruby community to weigh in on what they like and what they don't. Hopefully that will give us a clear sense of where to go with it. Certainly by now you've heard about _why. RedCloth owes everything to him and I hope I can speak for all of us when I say we're extremely grateful for the code he gave us over the years and the contributions he made to the community. He'll be missed if, in fact, he's truly gone. Jason
on 2009-08-21 04:42
on 2009-08-21 13:46
Hi gentlefolk ... I'm mostly and observer there, however I wonder if the "rewrite plan" has time to consider a kind of plug-able structure for things like different regexp engines, and may be other engines -- Say plugable HTML, XHTML, DocBook, etc. I thinking myself about the changes in Sequel to use plug-ins. It felt a bit 'funny' for a bit -- Now I see the sense of it. If you think it is worth considering that kind of option; I'd just suggest using a notion for a "default plugin" if you are a new-starter, so thing /work/ out of the box. There you are, two cents for free - Please excuse my Kibbutz*ing*. aloha, \_w_/ ___________________________________ Âº http://mbimarketing.wordpress.com Âº http://adroit-process.blogspot.com 2009/8/21 Jason G. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
on 2009-08-21 14:24
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Jason G. wrote: > Hi, RedCloth watchers. Just wanted to tell you Gaspard and I have agreed on a > rewrite plan. We're setting up a project to compare redcloth-treetop and > redcloth-regexp and any other alternatives that come along. We'll implement I've not looked at racc for years, but that might be a possibility. > some common features and then ask the Ruby community to weigh in on what they > like and what they don't. Hopefully that will give us a clear sense of where > to go with it. Sounds good. > > Certainly by now you've heard about _why. RedCloth owes everything to him and > I hope I can speak for all of us when I say we're extremely grateful for the > code he gave us over the years and the contributions he made to the community. > He'll be missed if, in fact, he's truly gone. In the Art and Code talk he was self-deprecating about his code, and, regrettably, once I was harsh about some bloopsaphone code which I didn't realize was one of his projects. But _Why had already learned something I'm still trying to take on board, that often quickly rolled together code that does the job is MUCH better than code which is "done properly" by the standards of computer science purists but is too late to be useful. He was phenomenally productive as a programmer, produced stuff many people used, and it was novel, reaching into niches others never considered. Some of the artistic work I still don't understand, but there was genius there. Why do the cartoon foxes in the Poignant Guide "work", on any level? I don't know. I'm glad he had the nerve to risk ridicule, and produce something so wonderfully bizarre. To receive praise from him like: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.shoes/1623/focus=1627 was something I really appreciated and still do. I hope he is still about somewhere, if only so he can look at the web and see he was valued. If he's dramatically taken a sabbatical, I hope he enjoys it. > > Jason Hugh
on 2009-08-21 22:11
Yes, I definitely want it to be more extensible. In the past you were able to write your own formatters (HTML and LaTeX came standard, but you could have made XHTML, DocBook, etc.) and I want to continue that. RedCloth 4 parsing couldn't really be extended, though. You had to pre- or post-parse for custom signatures (emoticons, ticket numbers, or whatever). I want the rewrite to be simple to extend and to have all that open Ruby goodness we've come to expect. And wouldn't it be cool if you could just gem install redcloth-docbook to have that formatter available? It seems very possible. While I'm at it, here are my goals for the rewrite (copied from an email to Gaspard): 1. Many other people can understand and contribute to it. This isn't true with the current Ragel implementationâ€”I have to do all the work while very capable programmers sit on the sidelines just because the code is so foreign and unapproachable. 2. It doesn't require compilation. I want GitHub to be able to generate the gem. And nobody likes waiting for a compile. 3. It is written in just one language (not four) and that language is Ruby (does Treetop count? meh, close enough.) 4. It is fast enough, but speed isn't the most important thing. We're all Ruby programmers, right? If speed were our top priority, we wouldn't be here. 5. The code is clean, modular, beautiful, and easily approached. This is what makes Ruby so great and it carries over into a lot of Ruby software. 6. It can easily be extended and manipulated to meet people's needs. Right now they can't inject more parsing rules, disable all but a few, or generally hack it into what they need. 7. It is 100% backwards-compatible and the output is practically identical, minus the currently identified bugs 8. The development cycle is very short. Right now I procrastinate on fixing bugs because they take so much time and experimentation to fix and release. I would rather turn around bug reports in hours, not months, and release often.