Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby • Hacker News Board

Re: Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby

#21

Post by egonschiele » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 10:28 PM UTC

FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #12

It looks interesting, but the screencast needs to be a bit more concise, and aimed at people who would actually use this. I made it through the first 5 minutes and gave up, because I wanted to see what the library did. I didn't want a tutorial seemingly aimed at absolute beginners, who in my mind wouldn't give two hoots about improved debugging at that stage. Had there been a shorter overview of the cool things you c…

Read the API. I had the same problem and skimmed through the API in 2 minutes.

Re: Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby

#22

Post by waxjar » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 10:42 PM UTC

This is great! I think I'll start using this, I'm tired of putting prettyprint statements everywhere :P

Re: Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby

#23

Post by Suan » Sun, Sep 30, 2012, 11:04 PM UTC

The problem this is trying to solve is an annoying one - so much so that I just wrote something similar a couple of weeks ago: https://github.com/suan/quick-debug

Letters seems like a better way to do it though.

Re: Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby

#24

Post by ans » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 12:42 AM UTC

AlexMuir wrote: post #16

ans wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worthless postings should be pointed out, i believe, so that we can have quality links on the front page. this sugar coating which seems to be so popular with the hacker news community these days is not helping anyone.

What an obnoxious tosspot you are. Once your karma is in minus territory I'm not sure you are qualified to comment on the HN community.

you're funny

Re: Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby

#25

Post by tyok » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 4:27 AM UTC

Nice, but for quick debugging I usually use pry: https://github.com/pry/pry

Re: Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby

#26

Post by djacobs » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 5:11 AM UTC

manveru wrote: post #20

djacobs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the base case. It takes arguments, too, and if you give it a block, it prints out the result of the block called in the receiver's scope.

Why `p` though? That's a method on Kernel already and does puts(args.inspect)

Just changed it. I was hoping people wouldn't mix and match, but I don't mind using `o` instead:

https://github.com/davejacobs/letters/issues/6

Re: Letters: A tiny debugging library for Ruby

#27

Post by manveru » Mon, Oct 08, 2012, 1:26 PM UTC

djacobs wrote: post #26

manveru wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why `p` though? That's a method on Kernel already and does puts(args.inspect)

Just changed it. I was hoping people wouldn't mix and match, but I don't mind using `o` instead: https://github.com/davejacobs/letters/issues/6

Thank you very much.