231–240 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it combine the OO of smalltalk and the functional programming of lisp? What was smalltalk lacking that ruby added?
Adoption.
I love this. It looks like exactly what I've been looking for since the iPhone SDK was first announced. I've been a web/RoR developer since high school but could never find the motivation to get used to all of Objective C/XCode's quirks. I've tried everything from PhoneGap to Appcelerator to mimicking native feel in a browser, but it was never enough. This is perfect. But quite frankly, I can't afford it. I'm a colle…
If you'd sat down and spent all that time on Obj-C you'd be coding away at it by now. Sometimes searching for an easy way out is a waste of time.
I love this. It looks like exactly what I've been looking for since the iPhone SDK was first announced. I've been a web/RoR developer since high school but could never find the motivation to get used to all of Objective C/XCode's quirks. I've tried everything from PhoneGap to Appcelerator to mimicking native feel in a browser, but it was never enough. This is perfect. But quite frankly, I can't afford it. I'm a colle…
But you could justify spending 4 weeks food on an experiment? Because you'll need that $100 to put an app on your device, as well.
I love writing Ruby code, but today I'm finally at a point where I also feel happy and productive with Objective-C. What made my eyes bulge is this: http://www.rubymotion.com/developer-center/guides/project-ma... No XCode. Instead of obscure and impenetrable project files, a convention over configuration Rakefile. Clean and Ruby-like workflows and repositories. While you can certainly configure an Xcode workspace to…
I dabbled in Obj-C over the years and jumped on the iOS dev bandwagon as soon as the first SDK was available. It was a long journey and coming from Ruby, I was very resistant. Once you're used to succinct syntax, it's really hard to use something as wordy as Obj-C (this was the main reason I never went back to Java). But over the years I came to appreciate Obj-C. I loved the speed and I clearly knew mobile was gonna be the next real fun thing to work on.
And that's where I've been the past 4 years, iOS land. I'm pretty comfortable now with Obj-C and the iOS framework and have worked on a number of projects in the app store. I can really say that I've seen all levels of crappy to great code. But last night when I went thru the samples of the Ruby Motion stuff, I was a little flabbergasted. I'm (now) so used to XCode code completing long method names and when I saw the Ruby equivalent and how condensed everything was, it kinda blew my mind again. I found myself thinking "whoa, that's right, there's no interfaces" when looking at the accessors (omg, so much less code vs. using typical ivar properties) and just all these little Rubyisms that I'm not used to seeing with iOS. It totally made me smile. Oh yah and blocks! They're, like, readable again. :)
Anyway, just to play around with the examples (which are pretty decent) was worth the intro price for me (I can expense it anyway). One big thing that does not yet exist is IB support. A few years back I switched to IB 100% (when possible) and so I'd much rather lay out my ui vs. code it all up. I've included a good Ars link below and in it Sansonetti says they're coming out with a DSL for easily laying out the ui. That will be interesting and it could push me over the edge for using this on a real project. Time will tell.
I kinda feel like I felt the first time I saw Rails. I would recommend anyone remotely interested just check out the Github demos.
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/05/exclusive-build...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"polyglot programmers that choose the best language for the job" You just described the majority of Ruby coders I've ever worked with. (mentally scrolls work history roster of Ruby devs...) Yeah, in fact you've just described all of them. I'm sorry your sampling of Ruby coders has been so poor, and I'm sure you could present examples to defend your prejudice. I know the stereotype you're talking about. I haven't work…
If that describes said ruby programmers, then why are they using Ruby? > Nevertheless, it seems to me you've become the thing you claim to despise: insular and closed off to experiences that would contradict your dogmas. That would be the opposite of "polyglot". I can find value in Clojure's concurrency design, Python's scientific community, Scala's marriage of OO and functional, F#'s modernization of ML environments…
I don't see the point of this. Objective-C is not hard to learn, and with ARC, blocks, the new literals for NSArray and NSDictionary, etc, Objective-C has actually become pleasant to write IMO. The example RubyMotion code also doesn't look very nice either. The problem with Rubyists (being one for the past 6 years I feel qualified to say this) is in general they want to use Ruby for everything. It's not always the be…
> Objective-C has actually become pleasant to write IMO. Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
def foo(bar, baz: "something") is perfectly valid ruby(1.9).
Really? What on earth does it mean? The "baz: something" ought to parse as a hash literal, which isn't legal in a method declaration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adoption.
No he means specifically with respect to Lispiness, what does Ruby have that Smalltalk doesn't. I thought of a few different answers, and then I found them all in Smalltalk, so I think GP is right, on both the OO and FP front, Ruby is pretty much just Smalltalk.
2) Pure command-line interface that works with text files, that makes it work easily with any toolchain. Seems that GNU Smalltalk is the first version which only recently did not require an IDE.
3) All the basic and most useful objects are literals. Enumerators are stupid-easy to use.
4) Much lower learning curve than Smalltalk.
5) Adopts some useful Perlisms into the language mix.
6) A large focus on unit testing, and TDD. And they are very easy to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No he means specifically with respect to Lispiness, what does Ruby have that Smalltalk doesn't. I thought of a few different answers, and then I found them all in Smalltalk, so I think GP is right, on both the OO and FP front, Ruby is pretty much just Smalltalk.
1) Extremely good developer community/support (gems, the #ruby channel on irc.freenode.net, blogs, books, etc.) Just a shit-ton of smart people. 2) Pure command-line interface that works with text files, that makes it work easily with any toolchain. Seems that GNU Smalltalk is the first version which only recently did not require an IDE. 3) All the basic and most useful objects are literals. Enumerators are stupid-ea…