Eating sandwiches in the park

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Markus, Oct 14, 2004.

  1. Markus

    Markus Guest

    If I decide to lunch in the park, taking my sandwich and bag of
    assorted goodies to the shade of a likely tree, I may not, even in this
    idyllic environment, find everything to my liking. I could, of course,
    suffer silently. Or I could decide to change what fails to suit.

    Now most everyone would agree that if my complaint were with the
    placement of the trees, or the season, or the reasonable conduct of
    others in the park, the proper choice would be to suffer them silently.
    Digging up my chosen tree to replant closer to the creek would, by
    almost everyone's standards, by inappropriate.

    But by the same token, hardly anyone would claim that I ought not
    add the condiments of my choice to the sandwich I'm about to chew. Be
    they pickled hot peppers or strange sauces, the choice is, and should
    be, mine, and very few reasonable people would dispute that.

    The difference, it seems to me, is that redecorating the park may
    well affect--for better or worse--the enjoyment others take in it, while
    decorating the sandwich affects only me. Thus I can undertake the later
    on my own authority, but ought not undertake the former without
    consulting everyone.

    The reason for my bringing this up, if it isn't already apparent,
    is that I have noticed a recurring theme on this list: some people seem
    to assume that a ruby program's extending/modifying of ruby's core
    classes is more akin to mucking with the park than to modifying the
    sandwich. Note that I say "seem to assume" because I am frankly puzzled
    by their position and do not claim to fully understand it.

    At first I thought they were acting as if one pragmatic picnicking
    programmer putting pickled peppers on his or her sandwich was going to
    ruin the park for everyone. This seemed unreasonable in the extreme.
    What business is it of theirs if some people take advantage of a feature
    of the language they do not care to use? Even if they share an
    installation of ruby with the people who prefer peppers, the effects,
    there will be NO EFFECT visible to them and thus no harm.

    I subsequently came to suspect that they were perhaps being more
    reasonable than that, but acting on the basis of an assumption that I do
    no share: that the park was a better analogy than the sandwich, and that
    any "local" modifications to the core classes must perforce affect
    everyone. As I enumerated elsewhere (when I first formed this
    impression) changes (especially extensions) to the core classes can by
    made quite local, though the basic fact that they are limited to the
    program in which they occur seems to me to handle most of the
    objections.

    A third possibility is that they are aware that the pickled peppers
    only affect the sandwich they are put on, but they still don't want the
    other guy to use them because they might someday want to eat the other
    guys sandwich. This is kind of a stretch, since no one is forcing them
    to eat someone else's sandwich, and they are free to reject any that
    they don't like the taste of. But in some ways this theory best fits
    the data.

    A fourth possibility is that their objections are more akin to
    moralizing than to personal objections. It isn't that they believe they
    have any reason to object, but still, "it isn't right" and thus "people
    shouldn't do such things".

    None of these are clearly the right way to understand the
    situation, so I ask:

    Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    sandwiches if they like it?

    -- Markus
    Markus, Oct 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:13:35 +0900, Markus <> wrote:
    > Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > sandwiches if they like it?


    Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us are
    forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.

    Many of us are working with a lot of open source code here; we end up
    working with code from a lot of other authors, and any feature that
    makes that code harder for us to comprehend witll get in the way.

    I know at least that's why I'm sceptical: No matter what the feature,
    I'm likely to end up having to deal with code that use it.

    Eivind.
    --
    Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
    RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/
    Eivind Eklund, Oct 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Markus

    Brian Wisti Guest

    --- Eivind Eklund <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:13:35 +0900, Markus <>
    > wrote:
    > > Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > > sandwiches if they like it?

    >
    > Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us
    > are
    > forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.


    I don't know about you, but I always check to see what's in my sandwich
    before I eat it, especially if some stranger offers it to me out of the
    blue, saying "Eat this. I made it special." Once I get a better idea of
    what sort of sandwiches a person makes, I might relax a little bit.
    It's also likely that this budding preparer of sandwiches will realize
    that not everybody likes pickled peppered broccoli on their peanut
    butter and jelly sandwiches, and not share the more exotic creations.

    If I'm desperately hungry, and there's a sandwich with creamed crab in
    peppered peanut sauce, I'll just take that creamed crab off and eat the
    part that doesn't make me gag. I will definitely warn all of my friends
    that this freak is making sandwiches with peanut butter and antifreeze
    simply because he can. My friends will probably avoid the freakish
    fabricator of crazed comestibles, leaving him to eat his razor blade
    and mouse poop sandwiches by himself.

    I like the sandwich analogy. I may have taken the idea into a new and
    more nauseating direction, but the analogy works. Code which abuses the
    flexibility of the language will not spread very far, simply because
    people won't use it. That has been my experience so far over the last
    few years, and I don't expect that pattern to change any time soon. If
    you see code which has had such abuse inflicted on it, you need to
    either fix it or avoid it. You're certainly not forced to eat it.

    Kind Regards,

    Brian Wisti
    http://coolnamehere.com/
    Brian Wisti, Oct 14, 2004
    #3
  4. On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:51:07 +0900, Brian Wisti <> wrote:
    > I like the sandwich analogy. I may have taken the idea into a new and
    > more nauseating direction, but the analogy works. Code which abuses the
    > flexibility of the language will not spread very far, simply because
    > people won't use it. That has been my experience so far over the last
    > few years, and I don't expect that pattern to change any time soon. If
    > you see code which has had such abuse inflicted on it, you need to
    > either fix it or avoid it. You're certainly not forced to eat it.


    I'll just have to say that this does not match my experience. I
    regularly end up being forced to use and fix software that has serious
    problems because somebody else has made the decisions.

    Examples:
    - Perl, where the interpreter design and language is just icky, but
    I've had to deal with it because there are applications/modules my
    employer needs to work
    - MySQL, where a migration is too expensive
    - The NFS code for FreeBSD, where we had a spaghetti of C macros
    making the code almost impossible to deal with, but cleaning it up
    would result in divergence from NetBSD/OpenBSD so we had less
    bugfixes.
    - Donald Becker's ethernet drivers in Linux - the code was fairly
    horrible, but they were the only source of some functionality.
    - A million lines of C++ code in various styles and for various
    projects at a former employer, where I did troubleshooting and ended
    up debugging many of the "funny" problems that the people that had
    written the code couldn't debug themselves.

    If you don't have to deal with other people's bad choices on a daily
    basis, you live a sheltered life.

    When it comes to dealing with Ruby code: Read my .signature (though we
    do some selection, we're also committed to providing packages over
    time, so giving the authors enough rope to hang themselves is bad for
    us.)

    Eivind.
    --
    Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
    RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/
    Eivind Eklund, Oct 14, 2004
    #4
  5. On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:29:27 +0000, Eivind Eklund <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:13:35 +0900, Markus <> wrote:
    > > Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > > sandwiches if they like it?

    >
    > Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us are
    > forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.


    I just realized I'd misread the original mail as an anology for the
    free-form-operator patch instead of re-opening core classes.

    Just for the record: I'm positive to being able to re-open core
    classes. I'm still sceptical of free-form operators. And I stand by
    my main point (that there are reasons to be sceptical of stuff even if
    you can avoid using it directly yourself).

    Also, my apologies for the "You must have lived a sheltered life"
    comment - that came out much harsher than intended.

    Eivind.
    --
    Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
    RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/
    Eivind Eklund, Oct 14, 2004
    #5
  6. On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 13:13, Markus wrote:
    > If I decide to lunch in the park, taking my sandwich and bag of
    > assorted goodies to the shade of a likely tree, I may not, even in this
    > idyllic environment, find everything to my liking. I could, of course,
    > suffer silently. Or I could decide to change what fails to suit.
    >
    > Now most everyone would agree that if my complaint were with the
    > placement of the trees, or the season, or the reasonable conduct of
    > others in the park, the proper choice would be to suffer them silently.
    > Digging up my chosen tree to replant closer to the creek would, by
    > almost everyone's standards, by inappropriate.
    >
    > But by the same token, hardly anyone would claim that I ought not
    > add the condiments of my choice to the sandwich I'm about to chew. Be
    > they pickled hot peppers or strange sauces, the choice is, and should
    > be, mine, and very few reasonable people would dispute that.
    >
    > The difference, it seems to me, is that redecorating the park may
    > well affect--for better or worse--the enjoyment others take in it, while
    > decorating the sandwich affects only me. Thus I can undertake the later
    > on my own authority, but ought not undertake the former without
    > consulting everyone.
    >
    > The reason for my bringing this up, if it isn't already apparent,
    > is that I have noticed a recurring theme on this list: some people seem
    > to assume that a ruby program's extending/modifying of ruby's core
    > classes is more akin to mucking with the park than to modifying the
    > sandwich. Note that I say "seem to assume" because I am frankly puzzled
    > by their position and do not claim to fully understand it.
    >
    > At first I thought they were acting as if one pragmatic picnicking
    > programmer putting pickled peppers on his or her sandwich was going to
    > ruin the park for everyone. This seemed unreasonable in the extreme.
    > What business is it of theirs if some people take advantage of a feature
    > of the language they do not care to use? Even if they share an
    > installation of ruby with the people who prefer peppers, the effects,
    > there will be NO EFFECT visible to them and thus no harm.
    >
    > I subsequently came to suspect that they were perhaps being more
    > reasonable than that, but acting on the basis of an assumption that I do
    > no share: that the park was a better analogy than the sandwich, and that
    > any "local" modifications to the core classes must perforce affect
    > everyone. As I enumerated elsewhere (when I first formed this
    > impression) changes (especially extensions) to the core classes can by
    > made quite local, though the basic fact that they are limited to the
    > program in which they occur seems to me to handle most of the
    > objections.
    >
    > A third possibility is that they are aware that the pickled peppers
    > only affect the sandwich they are put on, but they still don't want the
    > other guy to use them because they might someday want to eat the other
    > guys sandwich. This is kind of a stretch, since no one is forcing them
    > to eat someone else's sandwich, and they are free to reject any that
    > they don't like the taste of. But in some ways this theory best fits
    > the data.
    >
    > A fourth possibility is that their objections are more akin to
    > moralizing than to personal objections. It isn't that they believe they
    > have any reason to object, but still, "it isn't right" and thus "people
    > shouldn't do such things".
    >
    > None of these are clearly the right way to understand the
    > situation, so I ask:
    >
    > Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > sandwiches if they like it?
    >
    > -- Markus
    >



    If you work for my sandwich franchise, you will have to make it the way
    it comply with my company's procedure. Because, our sandwich already
    have fame in the market. People don't see what's inside the sandwich
    before eat, if it is from my store.

    If you want to put broccoli or whatever you want, do it outside my
    sandwich shop !


    --
    Mohammad Khan <>
    Legal Computer Solutions, Inc.
    Mohammad Khan, Oct 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Markus

    Brian Wisti Guest

    --- Eivind Eklund <> wrote:
    > Examples:
    > - Perl, where the interpreter design and language is just icky, but
    > I've had to deal with it because there are applications/modules my
    > employer needs to work
    > - MySQL, where a migration is too expensive
    > - The NFS code for FreeBSD, where we had a spaghetti of C macros
    > making the code almost impossible to deal with, but cleaning it up
    > would result in divergence from NetBSD/OpenBSD so we had less
    > bugfixes.
    > - Donald Becker's ethernet drivers in Linux - the code was fairly
    > horrible, but they were the only source of some functionality.
    > - A million lines of C++ code in various styles and for various
    > projects at a former employer, where I did troubleshooting and ended
    > up debugging many of the "funny" problems that the people that had
    > written the code couldn't debug themselves.
    >
    > If you don't have to deal with other people's bad choices on a daily
    > basis, you live a sheltered life.
    >


    Sorry, I committed an error of omission with my message. I was
    specifically talking about my Ruby experiences. The Ruby community has
    been a bit more sane than a lot of other coders. Thinking of why_, I'll
    need to modify that. The Ruby community may be insane, but so far it's
    insane in a manner that fits in very nicely with keeping your fellow
    coders happy.

    My Perl/SQL/etcetera experiences were bumpy from the first time that I
    had to read somebody else's code, and have continued to be on an almost
    daily basis. I haven't had that yet with Ruby.

    (knock on wood)

    Kind Regards,

    Brian Wisti
    http://coolnamehere.com/
    Brian Wisti, Oct 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Markus

    Markus Guest

    > > Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > > sandwiches if they like it?

    >
    > Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us are
    > forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.


    But this is exactly the point I don't get. Who is forcing you? Do
    they have a gun? If I write something you find distasteful, and even
    post it on the web, are you required to use it? Even if millions of
    others like it a start to use it, you don't have to if you don't want
    to.

    > Many of us are working with a lot of open source code here; we end up
    > working with code from a lot of other authors, and any feature that
    > makes that code harder for us to comprehend witll get in the way.


    So don't work with code that you find to hard to deal with. One of
    the fundamental tenants of Open Source (at least, as I see it) is that
    you are never required to use someone else's code if you don't like it.
    Maybe you don't trust it, or them, or think it's bloat, or buggy, or
    just don't like their choice of identifiers. Whatever the reason, you
    are free to decline to use it if you'd rather not.

    -- Markus
    Markus, Oct 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Markus

    Markus Guest

    On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 10:51, Brian Wisti wrote:
    > --- Eivind Eklund <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:13:35 +0900, Markus <>
    > > wrote:
    > > > Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > > > sandwiches if they like it?

    > >
    > > Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us
    > > are
    > > forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.

    >
    > I don't know about you, but I always check to see what's in my sandwich
    > before I eat it, especially if some stranger offers it to me out of the
    > blue, saying "Eat this. I made it special." Once I get a better idea of
    > what sort of sandwiches a person makes, I might relax a little bit.
    > It's also likely that this budding preparer of sandwiches will realize
    > that not everybody likes pickled peppered broccoli on their peanut
    > butter and jelly sandwiches, and not share the more exotic creations.
    >
    > If I'm desperately hungry, and there's a sandwich with creamed crab in
    > peppered peanut sauce, I'll just take that creamed crab off and eat the
    > part that doesn't make me gag. I will definitely warn all of my friends
    > that this freak is making sandwiches with peanut butter and antifreeze
    > simply because he can. My friends will probably avoid the freakish
    > fabricator of crazed comestibles, leaving him to eat his razor blade
    > and mouse poop sandwiches by himself.
    >
    > I like the sandwich analogy. I may have taken the idea into a new and
    > more nauseating direction, but the analogy works. Code which abuses the
    > flexibility of the language will not spread very far, simply because
    > people won't use it. That has been my experience so far over the last
    > few years, and I don't expect that pattern to change any time soon. If
    > you see code which has had such abuse inflicted on it, you need to
    > either fix it or avoid it. You're certainly not forced to eat it.
    >
    > Kind Regards,
    >
    > Brian Wisti
    > http://coolnamehere.com/


    Exactly, save one point: it also pays to keep an eye on people who
    choose to eat what you find unpalatable. If they die a miserable death,
    or even just slink off to kneel in the bushes, you are justified to feel
    smug if you wish. But if they prosper and thrive, you may want to see
    if you're missing something full of yummy goodness.

    I can still remember the transformational moments when I
    reluctantly tried (or retried) several of my present favorite foods, and
    discovered that they were in fact wonderful. As a child they seemed
    inedible, but as I aged my tastes changed.

    -- Markus
    Markus, Oct 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Markus

    Markus Guest

    On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 11:20, Eivind Eklund wrote:
    > Also, my apologies for the "You must have lived a sheltered life"
    > comment - that came out much harsher than intended.


    No worries. It gave me a brief happy moment of wondering if it
    possibly was true.

    -- Markus
    Markus, Oct 14, 2004
    #10
  11. On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:31:52 +0900, Markus <> wrote:
    > > > Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > > > sandwiches if they like it?

    > >
    > > Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us are
    > > forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.

    >
    > But this is exactly the point I don't get. Who is forcing you?


    Employers, generally.

    > Do they have a gun?


    No, they can only deny me food, so it's slower than that....

    > If I write something you find distasteful, and even
    > post it on the web, are you required to use it? Even if millions of
    > others like it a start to use it, you don't have to if you don't want
    > to.


    I work in contexts where I have to accomplish things, and where I
    cannot make all choices on my own. If I had infinite time, enough
    food, and wasn't trying to get anything specific done, sure, I'd have
    that choice.

    Alas, I have to eat, and I'm only getting 86401 (or less) seconds per
    day, and I've got stuff I want done. All of this cooperate to force
    some of my choices.

    Eivind.
    --
    Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
    RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/
    Eivind Eklund, Oct 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Markus

    Jamis Buck Guest

    Markus wrote:
    >>> Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    >>>sandwiches if they like it?

    >>
    >>Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us are
    >>forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.

    >
    >
    > But this is exactly the point I don't get. Who is forcing you? Do
    > they have a gun? If I write something you find distasteful, and even
    > post it on the web, are you required to use it? Even if millions of
    > others like it a start to use it, you don't have to if you don't want
    > to.


    No guns, but something just about as scary: the risk of losing my
    employment.

    Now, I don't do Ruby for a living. But I *do* write Java code, and we
    use many different open source libraries. I *do* have *some* say in what
    libraries we use, but I do *not* have absolute say.

    There are some libraries we are using which were mandated upon us. My
    life would be a lot less stressful right now if I could choose an
    alternative, but that's not the case, unfortunately.

    >>Many of us are working with a lot of open source code here; we end up
    >>working with code from a lot of other authors, and any feature that
    >>makes that code harder for us to comprehend witll get in the way.

    >
    >
    > So don't work with code that you find to hard to deal with. One of
    > the fundamental tenants of Open Source (at least, as I see it) is that
    > you are never required to use someone else's code if you don't like it.
    > Maybe you don't trust it, or them, or think it's bloat, or buggy, or
    > just don't like their choice of identifiers. Whatever the reason, you
    > are free to decline to use it if you'd rather not.


    Unfortunately, that's a rather naive view of things (and I don't mean
    that to say that YOU are naive, only that you have apparently never been
    in a situation where you've been forced to "eat someone else's
    sandwich"). Many times, especially in our own pet projects, we have
    ultimate say over what we use and don't use. There are also times,
    however, when we do not have that freedom.

    - Jamis


    --
    Jamis Buck

    http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis
    Jamis Buck, Oct 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Markus

    Brian Wisti Guest

    --- Jamis Buck <> wrote:


    > Unfortunately, that's a rather naive view of things (and I don't mean
    >
    > that to say that YOU are naive, only that you have apparently never
    > been
    > in a situation where you've been forced to "eat someone else's
    > sandwich"). Many times, especially in our own pet projects, we have
    > ultimate say over what we use and don't use. There are also times,
    > however, when we do not have that freedom.
    >
    > - Jamis


    Hmm ... I guess it's up to us to (nicely) slap down anybody who tries
    to use Ruby to make an especially distasteful sandwich, then. That way,
    all the widely-known options are nice and delicious!

    Kind Regards,

    Brian Wisti
    http://coolnamehere.com/
    Brian Wisti, Oct 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Markus

    Markus Guest

    On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 11:45, Jamis Buck wrote:
    > Markus wrote:
    > >>> Why the rabid objection to people putting broccoli on their
    > >>>sandwiches if they like it?
    > >>
    > >>Because people are putting sandwitches everywhere, and a lot of us are
    > >>forced to eat other people's for a variety of reasons.

    > >
    > >
    > > But this is exactly the point I don't get. Who is forcing you? Do
    > > they have a gun? If I write something you find distasteful, and even
    > > post it on the web, are you required to use it? Even if millions of
    > > others like it a start to use it, you don't have to if you don't want
    > > to.


    > No guns, but something just about as scary: the risk of losing my
    > employment.


    Bingo. I think that was the step I was missing. I feel quite
    dense. I "took charge" of my career years ago, and have quite forgotten
    what that feels like.

    > Now, I don't do Ruby for a living. But I *do* write Java code, and we
    > use many different open source libraries. I *do* have *some* say in what
    > libraries we use, but I do *not* have absolute say.


    I'm the opposite on almost every point: I do use ruby for a living
    (even though I'm supposedly semi-retired); while I don't have absolute
    say I am a part owner and the head of the technical side.

    > There are some libraries we are using which were mandated upon us. My
    > life would be a lot less stressful right now if I could choose an
    > alternative, but that's not the case, unfortunately.


    My condolences. That bites, no matter how you get there.

    > >>Many of us are working with a lot of open source code here; we end up
    > >>working with code from a lot of other authors, and any feature that
    > >>makes that code harder for us to comprehend witll get in the way.

    > >
    > >
    > > So don't work with code that you find to hard to deal with. One of
    > > the fundamental tenants of Open Source (at least, as I see it) is that
    > > you are never required to use someone else's code if you don't like it.
    > > Maybe you don't trust it, or them, or think it's bloat, or buggy, or
    > > just don't like their choice of identifiers. Whatever the reason, you
    > > are free to decline to use it if you'd rather not.

    >
    > Unfortunately, that's a rather naive view of things (and I don't mean
    > that to say that YOU are naive, only that you have apparently never been
    > in a situation where you've been forced to "eat someone else's
    > sandwich"). Many times, especially in our own pet projects, we have
    > ultimate say over what we use and don't use. There are also times,
    > however, when we do not have that freedom.


    We differ on this. I would say using code you don't trust just
    because you want the functionality is the naive (albeit more common)
    point of view. I am actually more likely to use random things "just to
    see how they taste" in my pet projects than I am professionally.


    -- Markus
    Markus, Oct 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Markus

    Richard Dale Guest

    Markus wrote:

    >
    > If I decide to lunch in the park, taking my sandwich and bag of
    > assorted goodies to the shade of a likely tree, I may not, even in this
    > idyllic environment, find everything to my liking. I could, of course,
    > suffer silently. Or I could decide to change what fails to suit.

    The difference between the expectations of programmers with respect to the
    Java programming language design and Ruby, is is that ruby programmers are
    expected to know what they're doing, and Java programmers are assumed to be
    'just average'.

    For instance, Java doesn't have operator methods because bad programmers
    might misuse them. Well thanks guys! Or they crippled anonymous classes as
    closures because it 'allocated too much stuff on the heap behind the
    scenes'. Again thanks guys.

    With Java you are not allowed to add exotic pickles to your sandwich, let
    alone rearrange the park. Although I would personally like to ban brocolli
    in sandwiches altogether, as a ruby programmer, that isn't how we operate.
    With Java programming, xml configuration files everywhere are probably the
    equivalent of brocolli. You are allowed to produce you own personal
    mediocre sandwich in the same style as other people, but are totally banned
    from having any say in sorting out the aesthetics of the park.

    -- Richard
    Richard Dale, Oct 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Markus

    James Britt Guest

    ...

    > If I'm desperately hungry, and there's a sandwich with creamed crab in
    > peppered peanut sauce, I'll just take that creamed crab off and eat the
    > part that doesn't make me gag. I will definitely warn all of my friends
    > that this freak is making sandwiches with peanut butter and antifreeze
    > simply because he can. My friends will probably avoid the freakish
    > fabricator of crazed comestibles, leaving him to eat his razor blade
    > and mouse poop sandwiches by himself.


    I'm still thinking of a semi-coherent addition to this thread, but in
    the meantime, a quick poll:

    How many people ever expected to read the phrase "mouse poop sandwiches"
    on ruby-talk?

    I tell ya, this list has *everything*!

    James
    James Britt, Oct 15, 2004
    #16
  17. I am but a new convert here (coming from many languages, but loving
    Perl most) ... so anyhow, first post for me.

    One of the thing that draws me deeper into Ruby is the ability to
    completely muck with the internals of the language, more so even than
    Perl (where symbol table manipulation, for instance, was common).
    Rewriting builtins or other modules via included modules is more
    automagical than what Java-fans would push on us with AOP (shudder) or
    reflection. And it's totally transparent. Nice!

    If this means we can have supernatural parks where sandwiches turn
    into were-sheep, I'm all for it. Sometimes people want languages
    that keep themselves from shooting themselves in the foot, and keep
    poor programmers from doing damage. Ruby is not that language, and
    that's why I like it.

    (now if we could only get something as good as CPAN in the core...but
    that's another story...)


    On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:39:26 +0900, James Britt
    <> wrote:
    > ...
    >
    > > If I'm desperately hungry, and there's a sandwich with creamed crab in
    > > peppered peanut sauce, I'll just take that creamed crab off and eat the
    > > part that doesn't make me gag. I will definitely warn all of my friends
    > > that this freak is making sandwiches with peanut butter and antifreeze
    > > simply because he can. My friends will probably avoid the freakish
    > > fabricator of crazed comestibles, leaving him to eat his razor blade
    > > and mouse poop sandwiches by himself.

    >
    > I'm still thinking of a semi-coherent addition to this thread, but in
    > the meantime, a quick poll:
    >
    > How many people ever expected to read the phrase "mouse poop sandwiches"
    > on ruby-talk?
    >
    > I tell ya, this list has *everything*!
    >
    > James
    >
    >
    Michael DeHaan, Oct 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Markus

    David Ross Guest

    Michael DeHaan wrote:

    >I am but a new convert here (coming from many languages, but loving
    >Perl most) ... so anyhow, first post for me.
    >
    >One of the thing that draws me deeper into Ruby is the ability to
    >completely muck with the internals of the language, more so even than
    >Perl (where symbol table manipulation, for instance, was common).
    >Rewriting builtins or other modules via included modules is more
    >automagical than what Java-fans would push on us with AOP (shudder) or
    >reflection. And it's totally transparent. Nice!
    >
    >If this means we can have supernatural parks where sandwiches turn
    >into were-sheep, I'm all for it. Sometimes people want languages
    >that keep themselves from shooting themselves in the foot, and keep
    >poor programmers from doing damage. Ruby is not that language, and
    >that's why I like it.
    >
    >(now if we could only get something as good as CPAN in the core...but
    >that's another story...)
    >
    >
    >

    There is a project that is CPAN-like, its called RPA. It ca be found at

    http://rubyarchive.org/

    The purpose is to offer high quality packages and provide excellent QA
    of ports. It takes the tiem off developers hands and puts it in others
    which are experts at packaging. You can also create your own packages
    and run the command with a web address. It'll automatically fetch and
    install the package. rpa-base does install ruby documentation, if any,
    to the ri document location. rpa-base can even build any modules that
    require non-ruby code to be compiled. Batsman(Mauricio Fernandez), is
    also on irc. If you have any questions, stop by and they will be answered.

    irc:#

    David Ross
    David Ross, Oct 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Markus

    Hal Fulton Guest

    James Britt wrote:
    > ...
    >
    >> If I'm desperately hungry, and there's a sandwich with creamed crab in
    >> peppered peanut sauce, I'll just take that creamed crab off and eat the
    >> part that doesn't make me gag. I will definitely warn all of my friends
    >> that this freak is making sandwiches with peanut butter and antifreeze
    >> simply because he can. My friends will probably avoid the freakish
    >> fabricator of crazed comestibles, leaving him to eat his razor blade
    >> and mouse poop sandwiches by himself.

    >
    >
    > I'm still thinking of a semi-coherent addition to this thread, but in
    > the meantime, a quick poll:
    >
    > How many people ever expected to read the phrase "mouse poop sandwiches"
    > on ruby-talk?
    >
    > I tell ya, this list has *everything*!


    And I in the meantime have Tom Lehrer's song running through my head,
    or a variant of it: "Poisoning Programmers in the Park."


    Hal
    Hal Fulton, Oct 15, 2004
    #19
  20. On Friday 15 October 2004 09:59 am, Michael DeHaan wrote:
    | (now if we could only get something as good as CPAN in the core...but
    | that's another story...)

    I have heard this before, but I am not familiar with CPAN. What is so good
    about it?

    Thanks,
    T.
    trans. (T. Onoma), Oct 15, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rossum

    cin is eating my output

    rossum, Oct 5, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    592
    rossum
    Oct 9, 2004
  2. Bryan

    popen eating quotes?

    Bryan, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    468
    Christopher Koppler
    Aug 4, 2003
  3. S0UL

    car park question!

    S0UL, Apr 22, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    577
    azmatnaseem
    Jul 22, 2011
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    314
  5. Dan Fitzpatrick
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    127
    Dan Fitzpatrick
    May 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page