ruby-x/ruby-x.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

renamed main section

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Torsten Ruger
2014-07-01 20:58:39 +03:00
parent 281100e41f
commit 0f0d54e51f
8 changed files with 186 additions and 67 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

111
index.html
View File

@ -1,82 +1,81 @@
---
layout: site
title: Ruby in Ruby is 100% ruby
layout: main
title: Effectiveness, not efficiency
sub-title: By way of a new look at programming.
---
<div class="row center vspace10">
<div class="span12">
<h1><span>Ruby in Ruby. With more ruby and nothing but ruby.</span></h1>
<p>"Hey crystal, what do you want to be when you grow up". I like pink, i wanna be a ruby.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row center vspace10">
<div class="span12">
<p><span>Ruby in ruby hopes make the the mysterious more accessible, shed light in the farthest (ruby) corners, and above all, <b>empower you</b> </span></p>
</div>
<div class="span12">
<p><span>Three ideas are behind it</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row vspace20">
<div class="span4">
<h2 class="center"> A better tool, a better job</h2>
<h2 class="center"> Where to go</h2>
<p>
Ruby is the better tool to do the job. Any software job that is. We who use ruby daily do so because it is
more productive, better in almost every way. The only downside is speed and we argue that with cheap resources.
When making the distinction between effectiveness and efficiency i like to think of transport.
</p>
<p>
Why it has taken this long to even seriously attempt a ruby implementation in ruby is due to the overwhelming
influence of C (folks).
Efficiency is going fast, like an airplane is much more efficient than a car and that is more so than walking.
</p>
<p>
Just a short and subjective list of why ruby is the better tool:
<ul>
<li>More fun. Ask anyone :-) </li>
<li>Lets you focuss on the task</li>
<li>Elegant, both in syntax and solution</li>
<li>Understandable</li>
<li>Much faster to code</li>
</ul>
Effectiveness on the other hand is how straight your route is. Say your in Hamburg and want to go to Berlin, then
it is not effective to go to Rome first.
</p>
<p>
Ruby, like python and mother smalltalk, let us be more effective at programming. We accept that they are not efficient,
but i think that can be changed.
</p>
<p>
But even while ruby has blossomed we have seen noticeable increase in effectiveness with so called dsl's and
what is generally called meta-programming.
</p>
<p>
But meta-programming is just a way to say that we manipulate the program just as we manipulate data. Off course! But
to do that effectively we need a better model of what an object oriented program actually is.
</p>
</div>
<div class="span4">
<h2 class="center">Understandability</h2>
<p>
The way i see it is that it is the understandibility that makes ruby or python more effective. As we read much more
code than write (even it's our own), focusing on descriptive programs helps.
</p>
<p>
But you only have to look at even rubies basic blocks, to see that we have a way to go. We use Strings to represent
words and text, while we store data in Arrays or Hashes. If you look these up you may find a thread used for tying,
a military force, or a dish of diced meat and vegetables. So we have a way to go there.
</p>
<p>
But even more disconcerting is that we have no model of how an object oriented system actually works. We know what it
does off course, as we programm using it all the time. But how it does it is not clear.
</p>
<p>
At least not clear in the sense that i could go and read it's code. Ruby like python are written in c and that just
is not easily understandable code.
</p>
</div>
<div class="span4">
<h2 class="center">Boys and toys</h2>
<h2 class="center">Playing computer</h2>
<p>
Rails has evolved tremendously from what was already a good start. All the development <em>around</em> it has nurtured
ruby developement in all areas. Rails and all those parts make up the most mature and advanced software system
i know.
</p>
<p> The "rails effect" is due to the accessibility of the system, imho. Ie it is written in ruby.</p>
<p> Ruby itself has not enjoyed this rails effect, and that is because it is written in C (or c++) </p>
<p> It is my firm belief that given a vm in ruby, ruby development will "take off" too. In other words, given an
easy way to improve his tools, a developer will do so. Easy means understandable and that means ruby for a
ruby developer
</p>
</div>
<div class="span4">
<h2 class="center">Step to Indepencance</h2>
<p>
The first thing any decent compiler does, is compile itself. It is the maturity test of a language to implement
itself in itself, and the time has come for ruby. The mark of growing up is being independant, in ruby's case of C.
When programming, we fly blind. We have no visual idea of what the system that we write will do and the only way
to get feedback is to have the final version run. Bret Victor has put this
<a href="http://vimeo.com/36579366"> into words well</a>.
</p>
<p>
Having just learned Assembler, i can attest what a great improvement C is over Assembler.
But that was then and it is not just chance that developemnt has been slow in the last 50 years.
So when we program, it's actually mostly in our head. By playing computer, ie simulating in the head what the computer
will do when it runs the programm.
</p>
<p>
There is this attitude C believers elude and since they are the gatekeepers of the os,
everyone is fooled into believing only c is fast. Whereas what is true is that <em>static</em> code is fast.
And so what we consider good programmers, are people who are good at playing computer in their head.
</p>
<p>
On a very similar note we are lead to believe that os features must be used from c. Whereas system calls
are software interrupts and only the c std library makes them look like c functions. But they are not.
But off course we have the computer right there before us. So it should do it rather than us having to simulate it.
</p>
<p>
So now, are we ready to generate some bytes? even if they are Machine Code. And go to the Source? I say we are!
What will come out of that line when we actually manage to put it into practise is unclear, though it is certain it
will be easier to do and result in huegely more powerful programs
</p>
<p>
Yet to get there we need better tools. Better tools that let us understand what we are doing better. Better models of
what we call programming, and by better i mean easier to understand by people.
</p>
</div>
</div>