New user questions

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by brundlefly76, Jan 24, 2005.

  1. brundlefly76

    brundlefly76 Guest

    I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
    looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:

    1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
    package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
    what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
    on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
    me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.

    2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
    tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
    belies this.

    3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
    what applications?

    4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    with Ruby?

    Thanks for any info!
     
    brundlefly76, Jan 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. brundlefly76 wrote:
    > I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
    > looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
    >
    > 1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
    > package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
    > what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
    > on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
    > me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.


    Can't tell you, sorry. As far as I am concerned I tend to make the
    latest stable Ruby on new systems (unless they're Windows machines, then
    I take the one-click-installer).

    > 3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
    > what applications?


    See http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RealWorldRuby

    > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > with Ruby?


    I used to do Perl and C++ programming when I first too notice of Ruby. I
    wasn't too exited, mainly because I didn't understand the Japanese
    documentation. Then some months later I found Dave & Andy's book
    "Programming Ruby" (the pickaxe) in the local bookstore and instantly
    got hooked.
    I didn't have the feeling I actively learned Ruby. I learned that there
    is a language out there that worked pretty much the way I think.
    And I have to admit that *this* was not the way I got used to Perl (but
    I have met people how say that it's just the other way round for them).

    Happy rubying

    Stephan
     
    Stephan Kämper, Jan 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. brundlefly76 wrote:

    > I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
    > looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
    >
    > 1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
    > package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
    > what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
    > on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
    > me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.


    I can not say much about this as I'm not a Linux user by myself, but it
    appears to me that installing Ruby via a package manager is still fairly
    easy.

    > 2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
    > tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
    > belies this.


    Ruby is usually released to the public on Christmas. See
    http://redhanded.hobix.com/cult/sevenChristmases.html

    There was talk about speeding releases up a bit, but the benefit of
    doing it this ways is that Ruby releases usually are very stable. I've
    even used release candidates without trouble via the wonderful one-click
    installer.

    > 3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
    > what applications?


    Of course. There's lots of usage samples on the RubyGarden Wiki:
    http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RealWorldRuby

    Ruby is because of RubyOnRails nowadays also getting used for running
    websites like basecamphq.com, 43things.com, rubyonrails.org and so on.
    See http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/DemoApps for a few more samples.

    > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > with Ruby?


    I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
    suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
    Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
    easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
    today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
    months) would be availability.
     
    Florian Gross, Jan 24, 2005
    #3
  4. "Florian Gross" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > brundlefly76 wrote:


    <snip/>

    > > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > > with Ruby?

    >
    > I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
    > suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
    > Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
    > easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
    > today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
    > months) would be availability.


    +1

    IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    Perl's OO was retrofitted.

    Kind regards

    robert
     
    Robert Klemme, Jan 25, 2005
    #4
  5. On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:25:52 +0900, Robert Klemme <> wrote:
    >
    > "Florian Gross" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:...
    > > brundlefly76 wrote:

    >
    > <snip/>
    >
    > > > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > > > with Ruby?

    > >
    > > I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
    > > suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
    > > Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
    > > easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
    > > today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
    > > months) would be availability.

    >
    > +1
    >
    > IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    > Perl's OO was retrofitted.


    Yep. Perl's OO sux0r. Ruby = bestOf(Perl, Python)

    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > robert
    >
    >



    --
    Premshree Pillai
    http://www.livejournal.com/~premshree
     
    Premshree Pillai, Jan 25, 2005
    #5
  6. brundlefly76

    Dick Davies Guest

    * Robert Klemme <> [0127 08:27]:
    >
    > "Florian Gross" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:...
    > > brundlefly76 wrote:

    >
    > <snip/>
    >
    > > > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > > > with Ruby?

    > >
    > > I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
    > > suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
    > > Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
    > > easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
    > > today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
    > > months) would be availability.

    >
    > +1
    >
    > IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    > Perl's OO was retrofitted.


    Definitely, that's the seller. A lot of the gurus on the list build awesome
    object frameworks with ruby - i just use it because it makes scripts easier
    to type and read than perl. although enlightenment does seep into my head
    by hanging about here too.

    The OOP is *so* much better than perls (it's actually usable) that you can
    take advantage of it even in a 25-line cron script while still
    enjoying yourself.

    As for the availability, it's easy to think 'well, i have perl already,
    so I'll knock out a perl script' but that has bitten me so many times in
    the last year (when someone wants a new feature) that my new year resolution
    was to break the habit.

    I finally put it on one of our servers last week
    after wasting an hour trying to get perl oop back in its box. It was quicker
    to download ruby (only 3Mb, I get emails from my manager bigger than that),
    build it and rewrite the script (an apache server-status -> snmp bridge)
    than to trawl around CPAN crying.

    You don't even need root if you install it in ~/bin and if it gets the
    job done in a morning rather than a week, who's going to care?

    --
    'When the door hits you in the ass on the way out, clean off the smudge
    your ass leaves, please'
    -- Alien loves Predator
    Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
     
    Dick Davies, Jan 25, 2005
    #6
  7. On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:29:02 +0900, Dick Davies
    <> wrote:
    > * Robert Klemme <> [0127 08:27]:
    > >
    > > "Florian Gross" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > > news:...
    > > > brundlefly76 wrote:

    > >
    > > <snip/>
    > >
    > > > > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > > > > with Ruby?
    > > >
    > > > I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
    > > > suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
    > > > Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
    > > > easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
    > > > today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
    > > > months) would be availability.

    > >
    > > +1
    > >
    > > IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    > > Perl's OO was retrofitted.

    >
    > Definitely, that's the seller. A lot of the gurus on the list build awesome
    > object frameworks with ruby - i just use it because it makes scripts easier
    > to type and read than perl. although enlightenment does seep into my head
    > by hanging about here too.
    >
    > The OOP is *so* much better than perls (it's actually usable) that you can
    > take advantage of it even in a 25-line cron script while still
    > enjoying yourself.
    >
    > As for the availability, it's easy to think 'well, i have perl already,
    > so I'll knock out a perl script' but that has bitten me so many times in
    > the last year (when someone wants a new feature) that my new year resolution
    > was to break the habit.
    >
    > I finally put it on one of our servers last week
    > after wasting an hour trying to get perl oop back in its box. It was quicker
    > to download ruby (only 3Mb, I get emails from my manager bigger than that),
    > build it and rewrite the script (an apache server-status -> snmp bridge)
    > than to trawl around CPAN crying.


    Heh, but that's no reason realy, is it? ;-)

    >
    > You don't even need root if you install it in ~/bin and if it gets the
    > job done in a morning rather than a week, who's going to care?
    >
    > --
    > 'When the door hits you in the ass on the way out, clean off the smudge
    > your ass leaves, please'
    > -- Alien loves Predator
    > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
    >
    >



    --
    Premshree Pillai
    http://www.livejournal.com/~premshree
     
    Premshree Pillai, Jan 25, 2005
    #7
  8. On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 15:00, brundlefly76 wrote:
    > I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
    > looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
    >
    > 1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
    > package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
    > what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
    > on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
    > me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.
    >
    > 2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
    > tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
    > belies this.
    >
    > 3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
    > what applications?
    >
    > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > with Ruby?


    When I was introduced with ruby by my boss, I was using Perl for about
    3+ years at that time. It was about 2 years back.
    I am not using Perl for at least 18 months.

    Mohammad


    >
    > Thanks for any info!
     
    Mohammad Khan, Jan 25, 2005
    #8
  9. "Mohammad Khan" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 15:00, brundlefly76 wrote:
    > > I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
    > > looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
    > >
    > > 1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
    > > package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
    > > what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any

    progress
    > > on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
    > > me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.
    > >
    > > 2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
    > > tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
    > > belies this.
    > >
    > > 3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
    > > what applications?
    > >
    > > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
    > > with Ruby?

    >
    > When I was introduced with ruby by my boss, I was using Perl for about
    > 3+ years at that time. It was about 2 years back.
    > I am not using Perl for at least 18 months.


    So you're clean now. :)

    robert

    > Mohammad
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Thanks for any info!

    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Robert Klemme, Jan 25, 2005
    #9
  10. Dick Davies wrote:

    > It was quicker to download ruby (only 3Mb, I get emails from my
    > manager bigger than that),


    Heh, good comparison. I'm pretty sure I'll have to steal it. :)
     
    Florian Gross, Jan 25, 2005
    #10
  11. brundlefly76

    Csaba Henk Guest

    On 2005-01-25, Mohammad Khan <> wrote:
    > When I was introduced with ruby by my boss, I was using Perl for about
    > 3+ years at that time. It was about 2 years back.
    > I am not using Perl for at least 18 months.


    Where can one get a job with such a boss??

    Csaba
     
    Csaba Henk, Jan 26, 2005
    #11
  12. brundlefly76

    Ben Giddings Guest

    Robert Klemme wrote:
    > IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    > Perl's OO was retrofitted.


    Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python
    back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's
    OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self"
    parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?

    Ben
     
    Ben Giddings, Jan 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Ben Giddings wrote:
    > Robert Klemme wrote:
    >
    >> IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    >> Perl's OO was retrofitted.

    >
    >
    > Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python
    > back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's
    > OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self"
    > parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?


    Uhm, I used Python 1.5, somewhere in 1997 or 1998. At that time, not
    everything was an object as it seems to be now (since Python 2.0).

    Probably matz knows more about Python ;-)

    Regards,

    Michael
     
    Michael Neumann, Jan 26, 2005
    #13
  14. brundlefly76

    Zach Dennis Guest

    Michael Neumann wrote:
    > Ben Giddings wrote:
    >
    >> Robert Klemme wrote:
    >>
    >>> IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    >>> Perl's OO was retrofitted.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used
    >> Python back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well.
    >> Python's OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores
    >> and "self" parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd
    >> design decision?

    >
    >
    > Uhm, I used Python 1.5, somewhere in 1997 or 1998. At that time, not
    > everything was an object as it seems to be now (since Python 2.0).
    >
    > Probably matz knows more about Python ;-)


    If we get lucky, Gabriel Renzi will post to this topic...

    Zach
     
    Zach Dennis, Jan 26, 2005
    #14
  15. brundlefly76

    Ben Giddings Guest

    Michael Neumann wrote:
    > Uhm, I used Python 1.5, somewhere in 1997 or 1998. At that time, not
    > everything was an object as it seems to be now (since Python 2.0).


    Oh, I know that not everything was an object up until Python 2.4 (or
    maybe 2.3), what I'm wondering about is whether the first few versions
    of Python had *any* object-oriented stuff.

    It seems odd to me that if they were designing Python to be
    object-oriented from day 1, that they'd use such an odd syntax for the
    OO stuff (the self parameter, the double-underscore things, etc).

    Ben
     
    Ben Giddings, Jan 26, 2005
    #15
  16. brundlefly76

    ruby talk Guest

    On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:13:58 +0900, Ben Giddings
    <> wrote:
    > Robert Klemme wrote:
    > > IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
    > > Perl's OO was retrofitted.

    >
    > Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python
    > back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's
    > OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self"
    > parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?
    >


    Accordin to http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/pylang/ref_103.html
    "Python was created in the early 1990s by Guido van Rossum at
    Stichting Mathematisch Centrum (CWI) in the Netherlands as a successor
    of a language called ABC. "

    Also, http://www.artima.com/intv/python2.html
    " Guido van Rossum: In the early 1980s, I worked as an implementer on
    a team building a language called ABC at Centrum voor Wiskunde en
    Informatica (CWI). I don't know how well people know ABC's influence
    on Python. I try to mention ABC's influence because I'm indebted to
    everything I learned during that project and to the people who worked
    on it."

    "ABC's design had a very clear, sharp focus. ABC was intended to be a
    programming language that could be taught to intelligent computer
    users who were not computer programmers or software developers in any
    sense. "

    http://rds.yahoo.com/S=79143:D1/CS=...ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_(programming)

    I get the sense that the main goal in Python was not to build an OO
    language, but to employ OO concepts (and others) to the extent that
    they help create a language suitable for beginners. It seems that if
    theory or design purity would get in the way of a newbie quickly
    picking up the language, then theory + purity got chucked.

    Perhaps Python could be thought of as a excellent attempt to clean up ABC?
     
    ruby talk, Jan 26, 2005
    #16
  17. brundlefly76

    Jos Backus Guest

    On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:05:08AM +0900, Ben Giddings wrote:
    > It seems odd to me that if they were designing Python to be
    > object-oriented from day 1, that they'd use such an odd syntax for the
    > OO stuff (the self parameter, the double-underscore things, etc).


    Since I thought it odd too, I asked Guido about the self parameter at an SVLUG
    meeting a while ago. His answer was (hope I paraphrase this right) that it
    should be possible to add a function as a method to a class outside of that
    class, in which case you'd need to be able to specify the receiver. Doing it
    this way makes it trivially possible to do this without coming up with any new
    syntax.

    --
    Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Sunnyvale, CA
    _/ _/ _/
    _/ _/_/_/
    _/ _/ _/ _/
    jos at catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer'
     
    Jos Backus, Jan 26, 2005
    #17
  18. brundlefly76

    Glenn Parker Guest

    > " Guido van Rossum:
    > "ABC's design had a very clear, sharp focus. ABC was intended to be a
    > programming language that could be taught to intelligent computer
    > users who were not computer programmers or software developers in any
    > sense. "


    Why does this description remind me of another (infamous) language... COBOL?

    --
    Glenn Parker | glenn.parker-AT-comcast.net | <http://www.tetrafoil.com/>
     
    Glenn Parker, Jan 27, 2005
    #18
    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. ABC
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,673
    Larry
    Oct 4, 2005
  2. ABC
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    504
  3. Scott
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    711
    Gregory A. Beamer
    Nov 13, 2008
  4. Ben Edwards

    Couple of questions from a new user.

    Ben Edwards, Jul 13, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    88
    Gregory Brown
    Jul 13, 2007
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    509
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Mar 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page