Bruce Williams - Latest Comments

Re: Another Day, Another Language

Shamkir — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:11:14 -0000

dfsd

Re: Using Vim

Anton — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:02:09 -0000

ответ на коммент . Али! хорошо.

Re: Using Vim

Anton — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:25:08 -0000

Привет. круто

Re: Another Day, Another Language

Ali — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 05:04:15 -0000

ответ на этот комментарий

Re: Another Day, Another Language

Ali — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 05:04:00 -0000

мой первый комментарий

Re: Another Day, Another Language

Ali — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 05:03:45 -0000

тест

Re: Wrapping a Method in Ruby

Christian — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:06:17 -0000

It's a nice article. Indeed.
Another interesting theme would be, how to wrap class methods. that's a bit more complicated without using ugly eval stuff (class_eval do; class << self; ... end; end), isn't it? ;)
Anyway kind regards
Chris

Re: Joining Reductive Labs

scottreduced — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:56:24 -0000

Glad to have you aboard, Bruce! Looking forward to working with you. Reductive is a great company with tremendous prospects

Re: Joining Reductive Labs

ReinH — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:33:30 -0000

We're glad to have you! It's about time we finally had the opportunity to work together.

Re: Living without send(), or trying to

The Daily Reviewer — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:34:40 -0000

Hi!

Congratulations! Your readers have submitted and voted for your blog at The Daily Reviewer. We compiled an exclusive list of the Top 100 ruby Blogs, and we are glad to let you know that your blog was included! You can see it at http://thedailyreviewer.com...

You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award here : http://thedailyreviewer.com...

P.S. This is a one-time notice to let you know your blog was included in one of our Top 100 Blog categories. You might get notices if you are listed in two or more categories.

P.P.S. If for some reason you want your blog removed from our list, just send an email to angelina@thedailyreviewer.com with the subject line "REMOVE" and the link to your blog in the body of the message.

Cheers!

Angelina Mizaki
Selection Committee President
The Daily Reviewer
http://thedailyreviewer.com

Re: A sleep hack

Matt — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:08:35 -0000

That seems to be a common theme among polyphasic enthusiasts. The discipline to keep to the schedule is tough.

I have an office job, so its not possible now. I'd try it if I started working from home again.

Thanks!

Re: A sleep hack

Bruce Williams — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:00:44 -0000

Matt,

It ended for a couple of reasons:

1. I have a 2 and 3 year old, and it was difficult scheduling the smaller naps during the day around them (It would have been far worse with uberman, of course)
2. My main problem before Everyman was an inability to decide to stop working and go to bed -- once a day. Everyman put me in a situation where I had to make this decision many more times a day, breaking my work momentum (albeit shortly). The breaks felt a little unnatural, but perhaps this is because my work rhythm and the schedule hadn't matched up yet.

I *do* recommend you give it a go; it was a very valuable experience for me -- in the least, I learned the value of a short nap... and the additional time I had made me extremely productive (creatively, too-- not just with busywork as some detractors have claimed). I may even try it again someday (or uberman) if/when my home schedule becomes more manageable.

Re: A sleep hack

Matt Katz — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:40:40 -0000

I'm interested in this sort of thing. Why did your experiment end early? What was your experience?

Re: Rails Views, Use update_page in link_to_function

Bruce Williams — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:51:13 -0000

egarcia,

Keep in mind this was written over two years ago. These days everything I do is in raw JS (and usually jQuery); I recommend the same for everyone else.

Re: Rails Views, Use update_page in link_to_function

egarcia — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:15:16 -0000

I'd argue that finding good, up-to-date documentation for javascript is easy, while link_to_function, update_page and "|page|" are still on the "not so well documented" parts of rails, and thus difficult to use.

Any place you can recommend for understanding them, beside the API pages?

Re: Living without send(), or trying to

softprops — Sun, 03 May 2009 01:25:06 -0000

Nice write up. Using #send is sometimes second nature and I've never really given much thought to it. I like the idea of using #method since you gives you more flexibility like a proc. It's worth noting though that you can still call private and protected methods with obj.method("my_nonvisible_method").call(args) from an external context. This article definitely got me think more about where and when to use send though.

Re: A GitHubby config.gem hack

Bruce Williams — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:23:00 -0000

Matthew,

In a nutshell; versioning, support for dependency resolution, standardized author/plugin metadata, inclusion of rdoc/ri in system documentation, and more deployment options. I've probably missed a few things

Re: A GitHubby config.gem hack

Matthew — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:26:59 -0000

Bruce - can you elaborate on why gems are preferable to plug-ins? (Version control?) Thanks!

Re: Revisiting Python

Simon — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:11 -0000

You may want to take a look at Lazydoc (http://tap.rubyforge.org/la... as a way to access documentation in ruby. It's not the snippet you wrote, but perhaps it could be extended that way.

Re: Wrapping a Method in Ruby

Kai Richard König — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:04:16 -0000

Thank you for the good read bruce

Re: Wrapping a Method in Ruby

charly — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:19:21 -0000

hi i wrote few articles on extend and super here : http://ruby.simapse.com/ with a refactoring rails without alias_method_chain exercise a view on unmix and uninclude. Hopefully they can be complementary to yours.
I'll definitelly dig into merb's approach.

Re: Revisiting Python

Bruce Williams — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:58:14 -0000

Mike, I can understand you on properties. I guess Ruby took the approach due to the fact you invoke a method far more often than you need to get ahold of the method itself. The property approach to this problem is interesting.

In practice, I tend to use parenthesis for invocation anyhow, unless there are no parameters or I'm writing in a more fluent, DSL style. I think this is the case for many Ruby developers.

Re: Revisiting Python

Bruce Williams — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:52:31 -0000

I've added some updates to the article that address many of the comments made so far (closures, tabs, whitespace).

Re: Revisiting Python

Markus Jais — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:04:41 -0000

Great article. I too used to do a lot of Python development including writing about it. I always liked it and still do. But I prefer Ruby, as you do. I think Ruby code is more beautiful, but that's just my personal preference.
I agree with you about the "self" in Python. This should really have been removed for Python 3. It's just annoying.
Beside this, I think Python has a great feature, especially with stuff like Django and SQLAlchemy.

Re: Bruce Williams: Arrow Lambdas, a Ruby 1.9 Vignette

Phil — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:56:09 -0000

> the parser now accepts a literal that looks like the following (to support some great new features such as default arguments and associated blocks)

You make it sound like these features are unique to stabby-proc... While they weren't around in 1.8, they work fine in normal blocks in Ruby 1.9.

Personally I wish regular blocks could be first-class objects, then we could sidestep this whole messy and useless stabby-proc vs regular Proc vs lowercase-proc vs lambda vs block distinction. Alas, it will not be.