11–20 of 50 posts
I think Ruby is OK enough, but what is this? state_machine :state, initial: :parked do I think in their zeal to "golf" the language, they forgot to actually keep it readable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been writing Ruby for about 16 years, and I find that eminently readable. You're apply state_machine to the attribute state , and giving it an initial value of :parked . Then there's a block that ostensibly encapsulates state transitions following (hence the do ). Ruby can be written extremely tersely, and that can be difficult for non-Rubyists to read. This might help: state_machine(:state, {:initial => :parked…
Positionally-significant colons is more nightmarish than significant whitespace. Speaking as a critic of significant whitespace. Put them at the front and make them mean something, or put them at the back and make them mean something, Making both places mean something entirely different, or even allowing both as an allowable syntax, is horrible for readability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Positionally-significant colons is more nightmarish than significant whitespace. Speaking as a critic of significant whitespace. Put them at the front and make them mean something, or put them at the back and make them mean something, Making both places mean something entirely different, or even allowing both as an allowable syntax, is horrible for readability.
Ruby uses symbols (strings prefixed with a semicolon) very liberally. It’s just a value literal. Ive never met anyone who writes Ruby that has an issue with the readability of it.
I think Ruby is OK enough, but what is this? state_machine :state, initial: :parked do I think in their zeal to "golf" the language, they forgot to actually keep it readable
I've been writing Ruby for about 16 years, and I find that eminently readable. You're apply state_machine to the attribute state , and giving it an initial value of :parked . Then there's a block that ostensibly encapsulates state transitions following (hence the do ). Ruby can be written extremely tersely, and that can be difficult for non-Rubyists to read. This might help: state_machine(:state, {:initial => :parked…
I think Ruby is OK enough, but what is this? state_machine :state, initial: :parked do I think in their zeal to "golf" the language, they forgot to actually keep it readable
I've been writing Ruby for about 16 years, and I find that eminently readable. You're apply state_machine to the attribute state , and giving it an initial value of :parked . Then there's a block that ostensibly encapsulates state transitions following (hence the do ). Ruby can be written extremely tersely, and that can be difficult for non-Rubyists to read. This might help: state_machine(:state, {:initial => :parked…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been writing Ruby for about 16 years, and I find that eminently readable. You're apply state_machine to the attribute state , and giving it an initial value of :parked . Then there's a block that ostensibly encapsulates state transitions following (hence the do ). Ruby can be written extremely tersely, and that can be difficult for non-Rubyists to read. This might help: state_machine(:state, {:initial => :parked…
Wait, is :state a keyword or an instance attribute? Using the same syntax for both seems really confusing.
I think Ruby is OK enough, but what is this? state_machine :state, initial: :parked do I think in their zeal to "golf" the language, they forgot to actually keep it readable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ruby uses symbols (strings prefixed with a semicolon) very liberally. It’s just a value literal. Ive never met anyone who writes Ruby that has an issue with the readability of it.
Selection bias
I think Ruby is OK enough, but what is this? state_machine :state, initial: :parked do I think in their zeal to "golf" the language, they forgot to actually keep it readable
It's kind of funny to me that this is somehow making the front page of HN given that it is a pretty old gem and has many shortcomings, e.g. only getting Ruby 3.x support in the last year.