Devi Web Development wrote:
> On 10/21/07, 7stud -- <bbxx789_05ss / yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ruby's documentation is so bad,  it makes learning the language too
>> frustrating.   The only good source of documentation is the book
>> 'Programming Ruby'.  If whatever you need isn't documented in that book,
>> then it might as well not be part of the language.
> 
> I have a hard time saying a language is poorly documented when the
> command line tool 'ri' is so accessible and easy.
> Granted, I would like more formal forms of documentation, (I admit it,
> I enjoy reading specifications) but I don't really expect I know every
> facet of the language, what I know easily makes it my favorite
> language of the moment.

I'm mid-way between 7stud and Devi here. I'd rather *not* have to learn 
how to use a package by reading "ri" or "Rdoc", or, for that matter, 
poking stuff into "irb". But there are a number of excellent books on 
Ruby, including, of course, "Programming Ruby." Now the *quantity* of 
Ruby books may not be as great as that of Java, Perl, Python, or PHP, 
but the *quality* is first-rate. The only problem I have with Ruby 
documentation is that there's plenty of it for the language and for 
Rails, but virtually none for Nitro/Og, etc.

So to paraphrase Ryan Davis, "those of you who have written really great 
Ruby software -- write those books or the kitten gets it!"

:)