graphing/charting application

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Chad Perrin, Jul 14, 2007.

  1. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
    bar graphs. PNG output would be ideal. I just need to create a chart or
    two, so I'm not sure that learning the API for a new library and writing
    software is exactly what I need.

    Is there something in gems that'd suit my needs? I'd be perfectly happy
    with something that just takes a series of numbers and strings as input
    and dumps an image file. My preference would be for a 3D-looking chart
    (with those faux-3D verticle bars in many a PowerPoint slide, for
    instance), but 2D is acceptable as well. In addition to helping with my
    current need to generate a couple of visual aids, such a thing might also
    provide some useful hints on how to accomplish similar tasks in the
    future when I look at the source code -- which is one of the reasons I'd
    like to find something written in Ruby.

    Any help is appreciated.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Michael Glaesemann, Jul 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chad Perrin wrote:
    > I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
    > bar graphs. PNG output would be ideal. I just need to create a chart or
    > two, so I'm not sure that learning the API for a new library and writing
    > software is exactly what I need.


    http://scruffy.rubyforge.org/

    gruff has been mentioned already
     
    Stefan Mahlitz, Jul 15, 2007
    #3
  4. > Is there something in gems that'd suit my needs? I'd be perfectly happy
    > with something that just takes a series of numbers and strings as input
    > and dumps an image file. My preference would be for a 3D-looking chart
    > (with those faux-3D verticle bars in many a PowerPoint slide, for


    You should really try to avoid those faux-3D bars - they make the
    graph much hard to read.

    If you want to learn more about the basics of good graph design
    junkcharts, http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/, is a good
    place to start.

    Hadley
     
    hadley wickham, Jul 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 04:16:13PM +0900, hadley wickham wrote:
    > >Is there something in gems that'd suit my needs? I'd be perfectly happy
    > >with something that just takes a series of numbers and strings as input
    > >and dumps an image file. My preference would be for a 3D-looking chart
    > >(with those faux-3D verticle bars in many a PowerPoint slide, for

    >
    > You should really try to avoid those faux-3D bars - they make the
    > graph much hard to read.
    >
    > If you want to learn more about the basics of good graph design
    > junkcharts, http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/, is a good
    > place to start.


    I'd normally agree, but in this case the purpose is to create a
    pseudo-joking maretroid presentation graphic.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    They always say that when life gives you lemons you should make lemonade.
    I always wonder -- isn't the lemonade going to suck if life doesn't give
    you any sugar?
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 08:01:43AM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
    >
    > On Jul 14, 2007, at 17:05 , Chad Perrin wrote:
    >
    > >I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
    > >bar graphs.

    >
    > Have you taken a look at Gruff? I haven't used it myself, but it
    > seems to be popular. Looks like it can do PNG bar graphs:
    >
    > http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
    > http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff


    Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
    available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
    documentation? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many libraries
    figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your hammer, everything starts
    to look like your thumb."
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 15, 2007
    #6
  7. On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    > On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 08:01:43AM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
    > >
    > > On Jul 14, 2007, at 17:05 , Chad Perrin wrote:
    > >
    > > >I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
    > > >bar graphs.

    > >
    > > Have you taken a look at Gruff? I haven't used it myself, but it
    > > seems to be popular. Looks like it can do PNG bar graphs:
    > >
    > > http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
    > > http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff

    >
    > Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
    > available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
    > documentation? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many libraries
    > figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".


    I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.
     
    Gregory Brown, Jul 15, 2007
    #7
  8. On 7/15/07, Gregory Brown <> wrote:
    > On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 08:01:43AM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
    > > >
    > > > On Jul 14, 2007, at 17:05 , Chad Perrin wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
    > > > >bar graphs.
    > > >
    > > > Have you taken a look at Gruff? I haven't used it myself, but it
    > > > seems to be popular. Looks like it can do PNG bar graphs:
    > > >
    > > > http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
    > > > http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff

    > >
    > > Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
    > > available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
    > > documentation? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many libraries
    > > figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".

    >
    > I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.


    s/Geoffry/Geoffrey/
     
    Gregory Brown, Jul 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 01:33:12AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
    > On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    > >On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 08:01:43AM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
    > >>
    > >> On Jul 14, 2007, at 17:05 , Chad Perrin wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >I'm hunting around for a simple application that generates images like
    > >> >bar graphs.
    > >>
    > >> Have you taken a look at Gruff? I haven't used it myself, but it
    > >> seems to be popular. Looks like it can do PNG bar graphs:
    > >>
    > >> http://geoffreygrosenbach.com/projects/show/5
    > >> http://rubyforge.org/projects/gruff

    > >
    > >Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like RDoc is
    > >available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
    > >documentation? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many libraries
    > >figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes "documentation".

    >
    > I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.


    Sure . . . just as soon as I figure out how to use the library. With the
    information that's provided, I could probably sort out how to create
    simplest-case line graphs, but beyond that I'd have to put real time into
    it -- time I might prefer to spend on Scruffy, which it appears has
    better documentation.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    Kent Beck: "I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java. I
    just didn't know it would be called Ruby."
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 15, 2007
    #9
  10. On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:

    > > I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.

    >
    > Sure . . . just as soon as I figure out how to use the library. With the
    > information that's provided, I could probably sort out how to create
    > simplest-case line graphs, but beyond that I'd have to put real time into
    > it -- time I might prefer to spend on Scruffy, which it appears has
    > better documentation.


    This might sound rude, but I don't intend it to be offensive.

    What makes you think maintainers of weakly documented projects care
    whether or not *you* use their software?

    It really irks me when people whine about lack of documentation for
    projects. Yes, it sucks, yes it makes it harder for general adoption
    of projects, but that burden isn't necessarily on the original
    developer's shoulders.

    Free software is a gift. It's also a collaborative effort. If I
    release an undocumented library and people who are skillful enough and
    have sufficient time to read the source can make use of it, great. If
    someone wants to help document the software to show appreciation for
    my work and learn in the process, as well as provide a resource for
    others, even better.

    What people forget to consider or refuse to consider is that adding
    features to software or fixing bugs benefits the developers directly.
    Writing documentation *might* benefit them, but often the folks who
    write these things are very busy and are already working on other
    important things, so documentation doesn't get written.

    It's fine to say "I don't have the time to learn this undocumented
    lib" and move on to another one, but criticizing projects for not
    being documented is a baseless argument. You're asking why volunteers
    don't volunteer more of their time to make *your* life easier, instead
    of helping things along or at least *shutting up* when you're not
    happy.

    I apologize for a mini-rant here, but users who think project
    maintainers owe them something really suck.
     
    Gregory Brown, Jul 15, 2007
    #10
  11. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 01:53:25AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
    > On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    >
    > >> I'm sure that Geoffry would appreciate documentation patches.

    > >
    > >Sure . . . just as soon as I figure out how to use the library. With the
    > >information that's provided, I could probably sort out how to create
    > >simplest-case line graphs, but beyond that I'd have to put real time into
    > >it -- time I might prefer to spend on Scruffy, which it appears has
    > >better documentation.

    >
    > This might sound rude, but I don't intend it to be offensive.
    >
    > What makes you think maintainers of weakly documented projects care
    > whether or not *you* use their software?


    This might sound rude, too, and I honestly don't intend it to be
    offensive either:

    If you think my statement implied that they should care whether or not
    *I* use their software, you need to learn some reading comprehension
    skills. I just answered the suggestion that I should contribute
    documentation patches with some very concrete, real-world, reasonable
    explanation for why that's unlikely -- even though I wish I *could*
    submit documentation patches that easily.


    >
    > What people forget to consider or refuse to consider is that adding
    > features to software or fixing bugs benefits the developers directly.
    > Writing documentation *might* benefit them, but often the folks who
    > write these things are very busy and are already working on other
    > important things, so documentation doesn't get written.


    What I find most annoying about the whole situation is that tools like
    RDoc were written specifically to ease the process of creating
    documentation, to provide a solid beginning to that documentation so that
    half the work is already done for someone that intimately knows the
    software, but the end result is that many people seem to think that *is*
    the documentation and never bother finishing the job. Documentation is
    an important part of any development effort -- almost as important as the
    software itself. Documentation is important for the same reason readable
    code is important, and yet people who will argue for days on end about
    the best way to eke that last bit of readability out of code will turn
    around and go on producing software without even the most rudimentary
    attempt to make documentation clear and useful.

    Why bother creating a website with screenshots, marketing-speak
    glorifications of the software, a Sourceforge project to entice other
    users, and a gem package for distribution, without even doing the minimal
    documentation necessary to make it generally useful? Time would be
    better spent writing some useful documentation than creating image
    galleries and using CSS to produce color gradients on the webpage.

    I understand my goals are not the same as everyone else's, but I find it
    quite difficult to figure out what goals are served by this sort of
    example of priorities.


    >
    > It's fine to say "I don't have the time to learn this undocumented
    > lib" and move on to another one, but criticizing projects for not
    > being documented is a baseless argument. You're asking why volunteers
    > don't volunteer more of their time to make *your* life easier, instead
    > of helping things along or at least *shutting up* when you're not
    > happy.


    This got blown far out of proportion from the intent of my previous
    statements, thanks to comments about "whining" and passive-aggressive
    insinuations that I should produce documentation or just enjoy the
    software without any documentation.


    >
    > I apologize for a mini-rant here, but users who think project
    > maintainers owe them something really suck.


    I don't think project maintainers owe me something. I think failing
    utterly to produce useful documentation is kind of a strange trend to see
    in languages that come with excellent documentation tools, and I think
    that my time is better spent using Scruffy (which has better
    documentation) unless I want to actually become the Gruff project
    maintainer myself. You're the one that assigned value judgments, whining
    tone, and an attitude of entitlement to what I said -- not me.

    I think people who put words in my mouth really suck.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    They always say that when life gives you lemons you should make lemonade.
    I always wonder -- isn't the lemonade going to suck if life doesn't give
    you any sugar?
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 15, 2007
    #11
  12. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:34:22AM +0900, Peter Seebach wrote:
    > In message <>, Chad Perrin writes:
    > >RDoc were written specifically to ease the process of creating
    > >documentation, to provide a solid beginning to that documentation so that
    > >half the work is already done for someone that intimately knows the
    > >software, but the end result is that many people seem to think that *is*
    > >the documentation and never bother finishing the job. Documentation is
    > >an important part of any development effort -- almost as important as the
    > >software itself. Documentation is important for the same reason readable
    > >code is important, and yet people who will argue for days on end about
    > >the best way to eke that last bit of readability out of code will turn
    > >around and go on producing software without even the most rudimentary
    > >attempt to make documentation clear and useful.

    >
    > I think many developers underestimate the significance of documentation
    > to projects. Of course, most of us have at least some practice figuring
    > things out without documentation, reading source, and so on...


    True. It's a shame that there isn't better documentation for some
    projects, however -- especially since that often means someone will go
    use something else (with better documentation) instead. While I could
    eventually puzzle out how to use Gruff effectively, for instance, I'd
    rather have something with good documentation at my fingertips than have
    to pore over source code just for a trivial use of the library.

    Since I've been accused of something akin to solipsism before in this
    discussion, I'll be clear: I'm not saying that I, personally, am an
    important user to whom developers must cater. Read my personal
    experience as a symptom of a deeper problem with the lack of quality
    documentation, please.


    >
    > But putting in a few years as a writer leaves me more concerned with
    > documentation than I used to be. I'll say that much.


    Writing what amounts to tutorial documentation for money in the last few
    years has certainly improved my understanding of the importance of
    documentation -- but I think the biggest change to my perspective is in
    the fact that I'm using libraries much more these days than I used to,
    and thus finding poor library documentation far more problematic than I
    used to.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    Marvin Minsky: "It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could
    actually spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game."
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 15, 2007
    #12
  13. Chad Perrin

    X1 Guest

    This may be OT at this point on the conversation but, I've used XML/
    swf charts for quite a while now and really like it

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Jul 15, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Chad Perrin <> wrote:

    > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:34:22AM +0900, Peter Seebach wrote:
    >> In message <>, Chad Perrin
    >> writes:
    >>> RDoc were written specifically to ease the process of creating
    >>> documentation, to provide a solid beginning to that documentation
    >>> so that
    >>> half the work is already done for someone that intimately knows the
    >>> software, but the end result is that many people seem to think
    >>> that *is*
    >>> the documentation and never bother finishing the job.
    >>> Documentation is
    >>> an important part of any development effort -- almost as important
    >>> as the
    >>> software itself. Documentation is important for the same reason
    >>> readable
    >>> code is important, and yet people who will argue for days on end
    >>> about
    >>> the best way to eke that last bit of readability out of code will
    >>> turn
    >>> around and go on producing software without even the most
    >>> rudimentary
    >>> attempt to make documentation clear and useful.

    >>
    >> I think many developers underestimate the significance of
    >> documentation
    >> to projects. Of course, most of us have at least some practice
    >> figuring
    >> things out without documentation, reading source, and so on...

    >
    > True. It's a shame that there isn't better documentation for some
    > projects, however -- especially since that often means someone will go
    > use something else (with better documentation) instead. While I could
    > eventually puzzle out how to use Gruff effectively, for instance, I'd
    > rather have something with good documentation at my fingertips than
    > have
    > to pore over source code just for a trivial use of the library.
    >
    > Since I've been accused of something akin to solipsism before in this
    > discussion, I'll be clear: I'm not saying that I, personally, am an
    > important user to whom developers must cater. Read my personal
    > experience as a symptom of a deeper problem with the lack of quality
    > documentation, please.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> But putting in a few years as a writer leaves me more concerned with
    >> documentation than I used to be. I'll say that much.

    >
    > Writing what amounts to tutorial documentation for money in the last
    > few
    > years has certainly improved my understanding of the importance of
    > documentation -- but I think the biggest change to my perspective is
    > in
    > the fact that I'm using libraries much more these days than I used to,
    > and thus finding poor library documentation far more problematic
    > than I
    > used to.
    >
    > --
    > CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    > Marvin Minsky: "It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse
    > computer could
    > actually spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game."
    >
     
    X1, Jul 16, 2007
    #13
  14. On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:

    > I don't think project maintainers owe me something. I think failing
    > utterly to produce useful documentation is kind of a strange trend to see
    > in languages that come with excellent documentation tools, and I think
    > that my time is better spent using Scruffy (which has better
    > documentation) unless I want to actually become the Gruff project
    > maintainer myself. You're the one that assigned value judgments, whining
    > tone, and an attitude of entitlement to what I said -- not me.
    >
    > I think people who put words in my mouth really suck.


    You're right. What I said came off as harsh and rude, and I apologize
    for that. I actually was more springboarding into the general field
    of complaints I hear about Ruby libs not being properly documented,
    and I shouldn't have made it seem like I was directing that
    frustration at you.

    That having been said, undocumented software can be useful to those
    who are willing to read the source. Usually, unit tests are very
    illuminating so long as they exist, and if some examples are
    distributed with the source, that's enough to get going. I really
    wish that users would contribute more documentation to projects,
    because often maintainers simply don't have the time.

    So I suppose what I'm saying is that users should meet maintainers
    half way. When that doesn't happen, documentation doesn't get
    written. For example... you could probably help out gruff enormously
    by asking relevant questions about things you cannot figure out easily
    from the API docs. But if you have no time for that, well, that's
    understandable. But I feel like all of us are only entitled to get
    back what we put in.

    Again, sorry for flipping out before, it was unwarranted.

    -greg
     
    Gregory Brown, Jul 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:34:15AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
    > On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    >
    > >I don't think project maintainers owe me something. I think failing
    > >utterly to produce useful documentation is kind of a strange trend to see
    > >in languages that come with excellent documentation tools, and I think
    > >that my time is better spent using Scruffy (which has better
    > >documentation) unless I want to actually become the Gruff project
    > >maintainer myself. You're the one that assigned value judgments, whining
    > >tone, and an attitude of entitlement to what I said -- not me.
    > >
    > >I think people who put words in my mouth really suck.

    >
    > You're right. What I said came off as harsh and rude, and I apologize
    > for that. I actually was more springboarding into the general field
    > of complaints I hear about Ruby libs not being properly documented,
    > and I shouldn't have made it seem like I was directing that
    > frustration at you.
    >
    > That having been said, undocumented software can be useful to those
    > who are willing to read the source. Usually, unit tests are very
    > illuminating so long as they exist, and if some examples are
    > distributed with the source, that's enough to get going. I really
    > wish that users would contribute more documentation to projects,
    > because often maintainers simply don't have the time.
    >
    > So I suppose what I'm saying is that users should meet maintainers
    > half way. When that doesn't happen, documentation doesn't get
    > written. For example... you could probably help out gruff enormously
    > by asking relevant questions about things you cannot figure out easily
    > from the API docs. But if you have no time for that, well, that's
    > understandable. But I feel like all of us are only entitled to get
    > back what we put in.
    >
    > Again, sorry for flipping out before, it was unwarranted.


    Fair 'nuff.

    Frankly, I'm up to my eyeballs in projects -- both my own and those to
    which I've already committed to helping out in peripheral ways, such as
    contributing documentation (including the fact that I'm still trying to
    find time to go through the TenDRA compiler's documentation and start
    writing more). I don't have time to write the documention for every Ruby
    library I want to use (slight exaggeration), though it'd be nice if I
    did. I spent the last week dealing with a webhost that kind of blew up
    in my face, and am trying to get everything moved to a different webhost
    now with broken database exports, et cetera.

    Maybe in a week I'll look back at this and have the perspective to see
    that I took what you said more harshly than intended, or more personally
    than you intended. When I wrote that reply, however, I just didn't
    really take it very kindly.

    Let's "kiss" and make up, or whatever the kids are doing these days.

    By the way, that URL in my signature won't work until I get some more
    stuff migrated to the new webhost. Dammit. I guess that serves as a
    needed reminder. . . .

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 16, 2007
    #15
  16. On 7/16/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:34:15AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
    > > On 7/15/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >I don't think project maintainers owe me something. I think failing
    > > >utterly to produce useful documentation is kind of a strange trend to see
    > > >in languages that come with excellent documentation tools, and I think
    > > >that my time is better spent using Scruffy (which has better
    > > >documentation) unless I want to actually become the Gruff project
    > > >maintainer myself. You're the one that assigned value judgments, whining
    > > >tone, and an attitude of entitlement to what I said -- not me.
    > > >
    > > >I think people who put words in my mouth really suck.

    > >
    > > You're right. What I said came off as harsh and rude, and I apologize
    > > for that. I actually was more springboarding into the general field
    > > of complaints I hear about Ruby libs not being properly documented,
    > > and I shouldn't have made it seem like I was directing that
    > > frustration at you.
    > >
    > > That having been said, undocumented software can be useful to those
    > > who are willing to read the source. Usually, unit tests are very
    > > illuminating so long as they exist, and if some examples are
    > > distributed with the source, that's enough to get going. I really
    > > wish that users would contribute more documentation to projects,
    > > because often maintainers simply don't have the time.
    > >
    > > So I suppose what I'm saying is that users should meet maintainers
    > > half way. When that doesn't happen, documentation doesn't get
    > > written. For example... you could probably help out gruff enormously
    > > by asking relevant questions about things you cannot figure out easily
    > > from the API docs. But if you have no time for that, well, that's
    > > understandable. But I feel like all of us are only entitled to get
    > > back what we put in.
    > >
    > > Again, sorry for flipping out before, it was unwarranted.

    >
    > Fair 'nuff.
    >
    > Frankly, I'm up to my eyeballs in projects -- both my own and those to
    > which I've already committed to helping out in peripheral ways, such as
    > contributing documentation (including the fact that I'm still trying to
    > find time to go through the TenDRA compiler's documentation and start
    > writing more). I don't have time to write the documention for every Ruby
    > library I want to use (slight exaggeration), though it'd be nice if I
    > did. I spent the last week dealing with a webhost that kind of blew up
    > in my face, and am trying to get everything moved to a different webhost
    > now with broken database exports, et cetera.


    What I've found in Ruport, which was the definition of poorly
    documented until very recently, that it's really helpful to have users
    just drop by the mailing list and say "I was able to get this and that
    done but now I've hit brick wall because *foo* is undocumented. This
    at least lets maintainers focus little bits of time on the most in
    demand sections of the system, instead of documenting things that may
    not be helpful to folks.

    It's amazing how little things like that can make a huge difference,
    even if it amounts to a user sending that one email and never
    responding again. (Of course, it's good to stick around too.) This
    mailing list is not the best place for those comments, because many
    package maintainers can't keep up with the posts here. :)

    > Maybe in a week I'll look back at this and have the perspective to see
    > that I took what you said more harshly than intended, or more personally
    > than you intended. When I wrote that reply, however, I just didn't
    > really take it very kindly.


    It's understandable. Tensions are high on the list lately, hopefully
    things will calm down soon.
     
    Gregory Brown, Jul 16, 2007
    #16
  17. damn that google. heres a sanely snipped response below.

    On 7/16/07, Gregory Brown <> wrote:
    > On 7/16/07, Chad Perrin <> wrote:


    > > > Again, sorry for flipping out before, it was unwarranted.

    > >
    > > Fair 'nuff.
    > >
    > > Frankly, I'm up to my eyeballs in projects -- both my own and those to
    > > which I've already committed to helping out in peripheral ways, such as
    > > contributing documentation (including the fact that I'm still trying to
    > > find time to go through the TenDRA compiler's documentation and start
    > > writing more). I don't have time to write the documention for every Ruby
    > > library I want to use (slight exaggeration), though it'd be nice if I
    > > did. I spent the last week dealing with a webhost that kind of blew up
    > > in my face, and am trying to get everything moved to a different webhost
    > > now with broken database exports, et cetera.

    >
    > What I've found in Ruport, which was the definition of poorly
    > documented until very recently, that it's really helpful to have users
    > just drop by the mailing list and say "I was able to get this and that
    > done but now I've hit brick wall because *foo* is undocumented. This
    > at least lets maintainers focus little bits of time on the most in
    > demand sections of the system, instead of documenting things that may
    > not be helpful to folks.
    >
    > It's amazing how little things like that can make a huge difference,
    > even if it amounts to a user sending that one email and never
    > responding again. (Of course, it's good to stick around too.) This
    > mailing list is not the best place for those comments, because many
    > package maintainers can't keep up with the posts here. :)
    >
    > > Maybe in a week I'll look back at this and have the perspective to see
    > > that I took what you said more harshly than intended, or more personally
    > > than you intended. When I wrote that reply, however, I just didn't
    > > really take it very kindly.

    >
    > It's understandable. Tensions are high on the list lately, hopefully
    > things will calm down soon.
    >
     
    Gregory Brown, Jul 16, 2007
    #17
  18. Chad Perrin

    Ryan Davis Guest

    On Jul 15, 2007, at 09:26 , Chad Perrin wrote:

    > Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like
    > RDoc is
    > available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
    > documentation? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many
    > libraries
    > figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes
    > "documentation".


    Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something is freely
    made available to the public, the users are disallowed from being
    polite? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many users figure
    a scathing comment in IRC or a mail to ruby-talk constitutes
    "constructive criticism".

    Why do so many users never seem to bother to put in an ounce of
    effort in looking at something for every pound of effort the author
    puts into writing it in the first place?

    It took me less than 60 seconds to download gruff, unpack it, and
    notice that there is over 92K(!!) of tests. PLENTY of live testable
    "documentation" right there. But instead of doing something like
    that, your sense of entitlement made you think the above paragraph
    was a good idea.

    ...Made slightly redundant by Gregory's replies, but I had to get it
    off my chest...
     
    Ryan Davis, Jul 16, 2007
    #18
  19. Chad Perrin

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:16AM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
    >
    > On Jul 15, 2007, at 09:26 , Chad Perrin wrote:
    >
    > >Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like
    > >RDoc is
    > >available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
    > >documentation? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many
    > >libraries
    > >figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes
    > >"documentation".

    >
    > Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something is freely
    > made available to the public, the users are disallowed from being
    > polite? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many users figure
    > a scathing comment in IRC or a mail to ruby-talk constitutes
    > "constructive criticism".


    Is there some kind of rule that states that everyone who takes note of
    what I said has to blow it out of proportion, assign intent to it that
    wasn't present, and generally try to put words in my mouth?


    >
    > Why do so many users never seem to bother to put in an ounce of
    > effort in looking at something for every pound of effort the author
    > puts into writing it in the first place?
    >
    > It took me less than 60 seconds to download gruff, unpack it, and
    > notice that there is over 92K(!!) of tests. PLENTY of live testable
    > "documentation" right there. But instead of doing something like
    > that, your sense of entitlement made you think the above paragraph
    > was a good idea.


    Lay off the caffeine. You're assuming an awful lot.


    >
    > ...Made slightly redundant by Gregory's replies, but I had to get it
    > off my chest...


    You should have sat on it.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    Thomas McCauley: "The measure of a man's real character is what he would do
    if he knew he would never be found out."
     
    Chad Perrin, Jul 17, 2007
    #19
  20. Chad Perrin

    Ryan Davis Guest

    On Jul 16, 2007, at 17:05 , Chad Perrin wrote:

    > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:49:16AM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
    >>
    >> On Jul 15, 2007, at 09:26 , Chad Perrin wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something like
    >>> RDoc is
    >>> available, library developers are disallowed from producing good
    >>> documentation? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many
    >>> libraries
    >>> figure a skeleton map of available methods constitutes
    >>> "documentation".

    >>
    >> Is there some kind of rule that states that, when something is freely
    >> made available to the public, the users are disallowed from being
    >> polite? I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that many users figure
    >> a scathing comment in IRC or a mail to ruby-talk constitutes
    >> "constructive criticism".

    >
    > Is there some kind of rule that states that everyone who takes note of
    > what I said has to blow it out of proportion, assign intent to it that
    > wasn't present, and generally try to put words in my mouth?


    The above is a direct quote of yours, so I didn't put words in your =20
    mouth. I found it snide and rude because _it_is_snide_ so I didn't =20
    blow it out of proportion. At worst, I could be guilty of assigning =20
    intent, except, it really was your intent to be snide, wasn't it? =20
    That seems plain as day to the rest of us.

    snide |sn=C4=ABd| |sna=C9=AAd| |sn=CA=8C=C9=AAd|
    adjective
    1 derogatory or mocking in an indirect way : "snide remarks about my =20
    mother."
    =E2=80=A2 (of a person) devious and underhanded : "a snide divorce =
    lawyer."

    snide
    adjective
    "at his final snide comment, she slapped him across the face"
    disparaging, derogatory, deprecating, denigratory, insulting, =20
    contemptuous; mocking, taunting, sneering, scornful, derisive, =20
    sarcastic, spiteful, nasty, mean.
     
    Ryan Davis, Jul 17, 2007
    #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. DJ Dev

    Charting with ASP.NET

    DJ Dev, Feb 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    441
    Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]
    Feb 8, 2004
  2. Robin

    charting in asp.net

    Robin, Nov 2, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    367
  3. Jay
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    419
  4. mk
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    284
    John Bokma
    Feb 3, 2010
  5. Larry Martell

    postscript and charting/graphing

    Larry Martell, Feb 14, 2006, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    98
    DJ Stunks
    Feb 14, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page