Martin DeMello schrieb:
> On 2/24/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello / gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/23/07, Servando Garcia <garcia.servando / gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Beginning programmers should concentrate solely on the basics of
>> > programming.
>>
>> Why is why a text editor isn't the best thing either - the "basics of
>> programming" should ideally let you write code, without worrying about
>> setting up your environment and include paths properly, getting the
>> right commands to compile/run it, etc. You should be open up an IDE,
>> type in some code, and hit a button to have it run, interact with the
>> debugger, etc.
>
> http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/02/its_lunchtime_a.html 
>
>
> Kathy Sierra seems to disagree with me. Interesting read.
>
> martin
>

What is the difference between Error an Horror ?

In my opinion the Community is most helpful but, by the numbers of 
questions resp
problems, to me it seems a tremendeous waste of time (and thoughts) because
this shows that (also) ruby lacks the clarity (not only) I am looking for.
There would be much less questions and therefore more productivity,
if there would be a clarity in this language - using human language 
resp. mnemonic -
like using Basic or Cobol or Pascal or D (or even Assembler).

Using Ruby (and Python ...) with its complicated coding, we don`t need 
the power
of todays Computers because we do, by this kind of languages,
the precompiling in our heads instead of using the given hardware
(which is much faster in doing this - and every time in the same way / 
straight forward -
not asking the number of questions - average about 150 per day - we do 
in this forum!)
I think there is only ONE way: using the above mentioned languages in 
precompilers
- for the pupose of transportability to different Sytems - generating 
i.e. Java bytecode
(.class). There could be jBasic, jCobol etc.

COMPUTER-LANGUAGES should not be treated as a religion but as a tool for
DOING SOME WORK FOR US.
We should not longue for a code consisting of the smallest number of 
characters.
There should be very little questions about the language (how will it me 
understand,
will it do what I want) but how can I implement the wanted logic using 
human language
resp mnemonic so there will be a readable and simple maintainable code
(even from project independent poeple).
TRICKY code - in this way - must be named as DIRTY code!
There are too many symbols with special meaning.

i.e some forum questions:

Is my code using the Ruby way ?

hi im new to ROR and although i know how to work with controllers
I having difficulty understanding what exactly they are and why they 
are used?
please help enlighten me :-)

Yeah, I did the former already (I like it better that way).
And omitting the ==true part makes the code more readable.

Very tricky!
Let make it a little shorter and more robust:
class A
def say_hi
m = %r/([^:]+):(\d+)/.match caller.first
return if m.nil?
...
(c = result.match(/id: (\d+)/)) ? c.captures.first : result.scan(/error:
(.*)/).to_s

Is there a smoother/better way to say this?

Hi,
Could anyone tell me or send links where I can find some reliable articles
about efficiency of ruby.
How I should coding to keep ruby efficient?

Err... fix the alias bug though (damn no-comma gets me every time!),
......
...
Klaus Ramelow