On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:28:01AM +0900, Hal Fulton wrote:
> 
> Hmm, I could refer you to chapter 1 of _The Ruby Way_ (soon to be in
> a 2nd edition). But read it in the library first, don't spend your money
> on something you might not use.

I've seen references to this book a number of times, and heard good
things about it.  What, exactly, is its approach and "theme"?  For
instance, the Pickaxe is in general a progression from simple
programming concepts with Ruby to more complex constructions, Why's
(Poignant) Guide is a very entertaining approach to very beginner-level
programming, some books teach beginning programming and "just happen" to
use a given language as its example language, Damian Conway's Object
Oriented Perl is specifically about OOP with Perl, there are books
specifically teaching use of Perl for CGI programming, Agile Web
Development with Rails is, of course, about use of Rails (with Ruby
instruction as a side-effect of that), and so on.  The Ruby Way is a
great-sounding title, but it doesn't tell me as explicitly what it's
teaching as (for instance) Learning Perl Objects, References, and
Modules described what the book contained (before they changed the name
to Intermediate Perl).


> >
> >P.S. I apologize for not using my real name; I understand this to be bad
> >etiquette. As I am a minor, my parents feel I am "at risk" and have asked 
> >me
> >to keep all such information private. I hope not to offend by following
> >their instruction.
> 
> What?! Picklegnome isn't your real name??
> 
> Seriously, anyone who complains about a minor not giving his real
> full name is an idiot (or worse). No one here could possibly be
> offended.

I fully understand a desire for privacy, whether parentally mandated or
arising from personal preference.  Just don't engage in sock-puppet
activities (assuming a second identity for deceptive purposes) and the
like, and I'm sure you'll get by just fine.  In other words, Hal's
right.  Don't sweat it.


> 
> OT: In an age where millions of college graduates can't write a simple
> English paragraph, thanks for writing an intelligent and articulate
> email.

Ditto!  In addition, thanks for asking a question that should probably
be asked more often.  I've seen two or three nontrivial efforts at a
Ruby instructional text of some sort that start out with statements like
"I was planning to write a book about object-oriented Ruby that started
with objects and just explained everything form the perspective of using
OOP in a way that would be comprehensible and quickly learned by
programming newbies, but it was too hard, so I started with variables in
the normal imperative/procedural style instead."  That drives me up the
wall.  I'm no Ruby expert, but I have some familiarity, and what I know
so far has quickly indicated to me that probably the best way to get
someone up to speed quickly on OOP with Ruby from a standing start would
be to teach OOP in a largely transparent manner, so that you're doing
OOP without realizing it for a while.  OOP has become such a ubiquitous
and important part of the programming landscape that it makes sense to
teach OOP first, when the alternative is strictly procedural code, for
most purposes.  Why hasn't this been done (as far as I'm aware) with
Ruby as the example language?

Yes, I'd do it myself, if I knew more Ruby than I do thus far.  Some
day, I suppose, I will -- if it hasn't been done by the time I'm ready.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham