[EVALUATION] - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 16, 2005.

  1. Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ilias Lazaridis

    Guest

    Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Let it be noted that c.l.python has absolutely refused to respond to
    your latest demand for filling in your template (1000s of page views, 1
    bump, 0 responses):

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group...cec57515249/ad0fac1509db3964#ad0fac1509db3964


    Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
    > [EVALUATION] - E03b - The Ruby Object Model
    >

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/e9d841fedb35903f
    >
    > -
    >
    > The above thread has shown, that the existen documentation is false.
    >
    > Within this page, you'll find a link to an UML diagramm
    >
    > http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/
    >
    > -
    >
    > Please review the diagramm.
    >
    > If it's correct, please ensure that the existent documentation is

    corrected.
    >
    > .
    >
    > --
    > http://lazaridis.com
    , Apr 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    wrote:
    > Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
    >
    >> [EVALUATION] - E03b - The Ruby Object Model
    >> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/e9d841fedb35903f

    >
    >> -
    >>
    >> The above thread has shown, that the existen documentation is
    >> false.
    >>
    >> Within this page, you'll find a link to an UML diagramm
    >>
    >> http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/
    >>
    >> -
    >>
    >> Please review the diagramm.
    >>
    >> If it's correct, please ensure that the existent documentation is
    >> corrected.

    >
    > Let it be noted that c.l.python has absolutely refused to respond to
    > your latest demand for filling in your template


    what has this to do with "false ruby language core documentation"?

    additionally: possibly the python community is scared about a
    transparent direct comparison with ruby and other languages.

    > (1000s of page views, 1 bump, 0 responses):


    where do you get the information "1000s of page views"?

    what do you mean by "bumbp"?

    > http://groups-beta.google.com/group...cec57515249/ad0fac1509db3964#ad0fac1509db3964


    Anyone of the ruby community knows python?

    please fill the python template, to showcase the differences.

    -

    and please don't forget to ensure the quality of the ruby documentation.

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 16, 2005
    #3
  4. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    > what has this to do with "false ruby language core documentation"?

    Why do you say that?

    > what do you mean by "bumbp"?


    Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

    > Anyone of the ruby community knows python?


    Are you sure that anyone of the ruby community knows python?

    > please fill the python template, to showcase the differences.


    Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

    > and please don't forget to ensure the quality of the ruby documentation.


    I don't understand.

    --
    M-x doctor
    Martin Ankerl, Apr 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
    > [EVALUATION] - E03b - The Ruby Object Model
    > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/e9d841fedb35903f
    >
    > -
    >
    > The above thread has shown, that the existen documentation is false.
    >
    > Within this page, you'll find a link to an UML diagramm
    >
    > http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/
    >
    > -
    >
    > Please review the diagramm.
    >
    > If it's correct, please ensure that the existent documentation is
    > corrected.


    an example for wrong ruby documentation:

    -

    cmd:> ri Class


    "Classes, modules, and objects are interrelated. In the diagram that
    follows, the arrows represent inheritance, and the parentheses
    meta-classes. All metaclasses are instances of the class `Class'."

    +------------------+
    | |
    Object---->(Object) |
    ^ ^ ^ ^ |
    | | | | |
    | | +-----+ +---------+ |
    | | | | |
    | +-----------+ | |
    | | | | |
    +------+ | Module--->(Module) |
    | | ^ ^ |
    OtherClass-->(OtherClass) | | |
    | | |
    Class---->(Class) |
    ^ |
    | |
    +----------------+

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Martin Ankerl wrote:
    [...] - (several babbling)

    > I don't understand.


    no, you don't _want_ to understand.

    cause you don't want to admit that the ruby documentation is false.

    but anyhow - it's irrelevant.

    One should call Mr. Matz to review this.

    Most possibly he's the only one who knows.

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Ilias Lazaridis, April 18:

    > One should call Mr. Matz to review this.


    > Most possibly he's the only one who knows.


    It seems that you don't anyway,
    nikolai

    --
    Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
    Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
    main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
    Nikolai Weibull, Apr 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Nikolai Weibull wrote:
    > Ilias Lazaridis, April 18:
    >
    >>One should call Mr. Matz to review this.

    >
    >>Most possibly he's the only one who knows.

    >
    > It seems that you don't anyway,


    I've invested some time (whilst ignoring finally the current
    documentation) to create this UML diagramm:

    http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png

    I'm asking now for confirmation/feedback.

    This is nothing special within serious software-development.

    -

    But as it looks, this community is incapable to do so (giving productive
    feedback).

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 18, 2005
    #8
  9. Ilias Lazaridis

    Guest

    Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Ilias:

    I've noted that there's been unflattering stuff being said both by you
    and others. Whatever happens, I hope that nobody feels inhibited from
    asking good ruby questions. That's the whole point of the list. I
    think there's still no ruby-tutor, and ruby-forum.org is still down, so
    ask away.

    That being said, I doubt that anybody's going to spend hours filling
    inyour ruby and python templates. That's your job. And maybe it's
    time to read the Pickax carefully and start digging for yourself.
    , Apr 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    wrote:
    > Ilias:
    >
    > I've noted that there's been unflattering stuff being said both by you
    > and others. Whatever happens, I hope that nobody feels inhibited from
    > asking good ruby questions. That's the whole point of the list. I
    > think there's still no ruby-tutor, and ruby-forum.org is still down, so
    > ask away.
    >
    > That being said, I doubt that anybody's going to spend hours filling
    > inyour ruby and python templates. That's your job.


    Please let the people decide.

    Many simply provide this information.

    and btw: this thread here has nothing to do with the templates.

    > And maybe it's
    > time to read the Pickax carefully and start digging for yourself.


    Maybe it's time that you realize, that the ruby documentation is false:

    http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png

    I will not continue to read _any_ ruby documentation, until this issue
    here is clarified.

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Ilias Lazaridis

    Lionel Thiry Guest

    Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Ilias Lazaridis a écrit :
    > Nikolai Weibull wrote:
    >
    >> Ilias Lazaridis, April 18:
    >>
    >>> One should call Mr. Matz to review this.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Most possibly he's the only one who knows.

    >>
    >>
    >> It seems that you don't anyway,

    >
    >
    > I've invested some time (whilst ignoring finally the current
    > documentation) to create this UML diagramm:
    >
    > http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png
    >
    > I'm asking now for confirmation/feedback.
    >
    > This is nothing special within serious software-development.
    >
    > -
    >
    > But as it looks, this community is incapable to do so (giving productive
    > feedback).


    I can.

    -

    But there are other ways of asking, you know... :(

    -

    I'll give it a try: the documentation "ri Class" gives is not wrong at all.
    Maybe not complete, but not wrong.

    -

    In "ri Class" text, if you replace references to "metaclasses" (which are said
    to be between parentheses) by "singleton method placeholders", perhaps it
    becomes clearer?

    -

    I remember that what was disturbing you was the stuff about metaclasses. I told
    you ruby invite you to think more in terms of singleton method than in terms of
    metaclasses. But it seems that you ignore what are singleton methods.

    -

    Have you ever evaluated some classless OO langages? I know some: IO (
    http://www.iolanguage.com/ ), Self ( http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SelfLanguage ) and
    REBOL (rebol is not basically OO, but its OO part is classless.
    http://www.rebol.com/ ). If you would, the concept of singleton method would be
    far easier to understand for you. (this is actually how I understood that concept)

    -

    http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png

    Your UML diagram of ruby object model is hard to read, and probably wrong. The
    separation between classes in memory and in source code is totally confusing. In
    ruby, classes *are* objects. Learn more about classless languages, and it should
    be far easier to understand these concepts.

    There is another evident mistake in your UML diagram. Object doesn't inherit
    from nil, nil is a literal and an instance of NilClass which inherit from Object.

    -

    I tried my best, I can't say anymore. Please, don't ask me for lengthy
    exhausting explanations. Try the languages I told you about, they are really
    worth it.

    -

    Have a nice day.

    --
    Lionel Thiry

    PS: Please, anybody, do not blame me for anwsering this post. Do not blame me
    for imitating Lazaridis posting. Do not blame me for trying to be nice.
    Lionel Thiry, Apr 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Lionel Thiry schrieb:
    > Ilias Lazaridis a écrit :
    >
    >> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ilias Lazaridis, April 18:
    >>>

    >>
    >> But as it looks, this community is incapable to do so (giving
    >> productive feedback).



    I can't help it, this sounds too much like http://bash.org/?152037 to
    not make me laugh.


    >
    > PS: Please, anybody, do not blame me for anwsering this post. Do not
    > blame me for imitating Lazaridis posting. Do not blame me for trying to
    > be nice.
    >
    >



    I, for one, appreciate your effort very much, (even though I fear it's
    wasted).

    Henrik
    Henrik Horneber, Apr 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Ilias Lazaridis

    tsuraan Guest

    Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Henrik Horneber wrote:

    > Lionel Thiry schrieb:
    >> Ilias Lazaridis a écrit :
    >>> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Ilias Lazaridis, April 18:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> But as it looks, this community is incapable to do so (giving
    >>> productive feedback).

    >
    >
    > I can't help it, this sounds too much like http://bash.org/?152037 to
    > not make me laugh.


    Scary... Before I even clicked the link, I was sure of which one you
    were referring to.
    tsuraan, Apr 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Ilias Lazaridis

    Carlos Guest

    Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

    > an example for wrong ruby documentation:
    >
    > -
    >
    > cmd:> ri Class
    >
    >
    > "Classes, modules, and objects are interrelated. In the diagram that
    > follows, the arrows represent inheritance, and the parentheses
    > meta-classes. All metaclasses are instances of the class `Class'."



    Well, yes. If I'm not mistaken, horizontal arrows represent "instance
    of". Only vertical ones represent inheritance.
    Carlos, Apr 18, 2005
    #14
  15. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

    > and btw: this thread here has nothing to do with the templates.


    Maybe it's time that you realize, that starting a thread doesn't mean
    owning it.
    Florian Groß, Apr 18, 2005
    #15
  16. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    >> I don't understand.
    >
    > no, you don't _want_ to understand.


    Uh, I thought it was obvious that my response was automatically
    generated by a bot (emacs' psycodoctor).

    martinus
    Martin Ankerl, Apr 18, 2005
    #16
  17. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Florian Groß wrote:
    > Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
    >
    >> and btw: this thread here has nothing to do with the templates.

    >
    > Maybe it's time that you realize, that starting a thread doesn't mean
    > owning it.


    please let's not go into discussion essential usenet rules (or
    mailinglist/forum rules).

    It's a matter of gentleness against readers to stay in-topic, especially
    within analytical threads.

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 19, 2005
    #17
  18. Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Martin Ankerl wrote:
    >>> I don't understand.

    >>
    >>
    >> no, you don't _want_ to understand.

    >
    > Uh, I thought it was obvious that my response was automatically
    > generated by a bot (emacs' psycodoctor).


    I see.

    Possibly the same bot has generated the the "ri class" documentation.

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 19, 2005
    #18
  19. Carlos wrote:
    > Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
    >
    >> an example for wrong ruby documentation:
    >>
    >> -
    >>
    >> cmd:> ri Class
    >>
    >>
    >> "Classes, modules, and objects are interrelated. In the diagram that
    >> follows, the arrows represent inheritance, and the parentheses
    >> meta-classes. All metaclasses are instances of the class `Class'."

    >
    > Well, yes. If I'm not mistaken, horizontal arrows represent "instance
    > of".


    not exactly, it's more a "becomes" relation:

    "class definition" ----"becomes"----> "(class) instance"

    -

    "instance of" would be false, because:

    * the direction fo the arrow would be wrong
    * all 'metaclasses' are instances of the class "Class"

    > Only vertical ones represent inheritance.


    yes.

    so, the minimum correction would be:

    additional text:
    "the vertical arrows represent XXXX"

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 19, 2005
    #19
  20. Re: [EVALUATION] - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

    Christian Neukirchen wrote:
    > Ilias Lazaridis <> writes:
    >>Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
    >>
    >>an example for wrong ruby documentation:
    >>
    >>-
    >>
    >>cmd:> ri Class
    >>
    >>
    >>"Classes, modules, and objects are interrelated. In the diagram that
    >>follows, the arrows represent inheritance, and the parentheses
    >>meta-classes. All metaclasses are instances of the class `Class'."
    >>
    >> +------------------+
    >> | |
    >> Object---->(Object) |
    >> ^ ^ ^ ^ |
    >> | | | | |
    >> | | +-----+ +---------+ |
    >> | | | | |
    >> | +-----------+ | |
    >> | | | | |
    >> +------+ | Module--->(Module) |
    >> | | ^ ^ |
    >> OtherClass-->(OtherClass) | | |
    >> | | |
    >> Class---->(Class) |
    >> ^ |
    >> | |
    >> +----------------+

    >
    > I do not see what's wrong here, can you explain?


    definitive errors:

    a) not all arrows represent inheritance, just the verticals.

    b) the relation "(Object)"---[inherits from]--->"Class" is false.

    correct: "(Object)"---[inherits-from]------->nil

    or

    correct: "(Object)"---[is-an-instance-of]--->Class

    -

    and finally:

    the diagramm gives the impression, that "Object" and "(Object)" (etc.)
    are both classes, which is of course false. There is a "definition" and
    an "(instance)".

    -

    I will shortly update the UML diagramm to version 1.1, to simplify it a
    little bit more:

    http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby

    ..

    --
    http://lazaridis.com
    Ilias Lazaridis, Apr 19, 2005
    #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. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    702
    Ilias Lazaridis
    Apr 4, 2005
  2. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    311
    Bill Guindon
    Apr 9, 2005
  3. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    229
    Csaba Henk
    Apr 21, 2005
  4. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    715
    Lyndon Samson
    Apr 23, 2005
  5. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    96
    Ilias Lazaridis
    Dec 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page