I want to export some strings in my application into CSS format. For example,
[00:01:14.20] {RU2}{RU2}{CR}{CR}{1500}{1500}YOUR PLACE TO LEARN AND TALK
to:
00:01:14:20 9425 9425 94ad 94ad 9470 9470 d94f d552 20d0 4cc1 4345 2054 4f20 4c45 c152 ce20 c1ce c420 54c1 4ccb
Is there any gem that takes care of this? Or, do I need to create my own logic?
The Scenarist Closed Captions format tools have no bindings for ruby, AFAIK. The possible solution would be to download the tools from the author’s site, extract the perl scripts from SOURCE folder inside zip archive, bundle these perl scripts with your project and call these scripts as linux system utilities via %x||.
I know no better alternative to implementing the logic yourself / porting these perls to ruby.
Related
I am looking for an executable (or a library that I might embed in C# or via Managed C++ into the C# project) to create binary diff files for two folders and their contents and a patch tool to apply those patch files as well targeting Windows.
This SO post refers to various tools such as bsdiff/bspatch which is highly dated. The 3rd party executable that is available here does not work when trying it out though. Another variant that is not compatible with the original is the following. Unfortunately it relies on bzlib and certain Linux headers and I wasn't really able to set it up accordingly under Visual Studio.
Anyways, all tools and posts are about 8-10 years old and I'd like to know which tools and libraries are currently maintained that I might take a look at.
I have been experimenting with Octodiff and I am impressed and will most likely be using it in production.
Is there any way to create executable binaries from Ruby/Rake task?
I have simple FileUtil tool written in ruby and I'd like to package it somehow into script that can be run or OSX, Linux or Windows. Is there any way to do that?
Ruby is an interpreted language and not a compiled one like C or Java. Then answering your question is not so easy.
But there are some tools that permit you to protect your source code (encrypting) and creating some packages that are runnable cross platform (but in this case you should ever resolve any dependency).
This question covers pretty good how you can distribuite your code without (or encrypting) your source code: Can you Distribute a Ruby on Rails Application without Source?
Other useful tools that I have founded in these moments:
- Compiling a rake https://github.com/luislavena/rake-compiler
- Debian (.deb) packaging http://crohr.me/pkgr/
I have to create (or rather modify) software package for MacOSX on Windows. I can do what I need with .pax files, so the only thing left is bill-of-material.
Does anyone know of a library that can do it? Is there BOM file format (Apple-version) available?
TIA
There is now an open source version of mkbom which also compiles for windows at:
http://hogliux.github.io/bomutils/
The windows version still contains some bugs (no special characters in file names and limitations on file path length). However, it should work for simple installers.
The website also has an easy to follow step-by-step tutorial on how to create a Mac OS X installer (however, the tutorial is for linux, see http://hogliux.github.io/bomutils/tutorial.html ).
Well, BOM is not necessary, MacOSX package is a simple directory structure with optional elements, BOM being one of them.
I've written a little library that uses implicits to add functionality that one only needs when using the REPL in Scala. Ruby has libraries like this - for things like pretty printing, firing up text editors (like the interactive_editor gem which invokes Vim from irb - see this post), debuggers and the like. The library I am trying to write adds some methods to java.lang.Class and java.lang.reflect classes using the 'pimp my library' implicit conversion process to help you go and find documentation (initially, with Google, then later possibly with a JavaDoc/ScalaDoc viewer, and maybe the StackOverflow API eventually!). It's an itch-scratching library: I spend so much time copying and pasting classnames into Google that I figured I may as well automate the process.
It is the sort of functionality that developers will want to add to their system for use only in the REPL - they shouldn't really be adding it to projects (partly because it may not be something that their fellow developers want, but also because if you are doing some exploratory development, it may be with just a Scala REPL that's not being invoked by an IDE or build tool).
In my case, I want to include a few classes and set up some implicits - include a .jar on the CLASSPATH and import it, basically.
In Ruby, this is the sort of thing that you'd add to your .irbrc file. Other REPLs have similar ways of setting options and importing libraries.
Is there a similar file or way of doing this for the Scala REPL?
On the command line, you can use the -i option to load a file while starting the REPL:
scala -cp mystuff.jar -i mydefs.scala
Ofcourse you could wrap this in a shell script or batch file and run that instead of the normal scala command.
(I'm using Scala 2.8.0 RC3).
Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but if you put any jars in your SCALA_HOME\lib directory. Then those jars will be available for import in the REPL (using the import keyword).
EDIT: The most convenient option as of now is by setting the CLASSPATH environment variable. Any jars referenced in the CLASSPATH variable are also available for import in the REPL.
Quick answer probably not what you are looking for, but what about typing
:load path/to/some/scala/script/file.scala
in the console?
:load will read in a scala file and execute it as a script.
Another option is to use sbt set up your dependencies and execute the console command.
The final option I can think of is to set the classpath on the command line manually and point it to the jars / class file folders that you want the jvm to know about.
Let me know if any of this interests you and I can provide more details if needed.
In Java when you compile a .java file which defines a class, it creates a .class file. If you provide these class files to your coworkers then they cannot modify your source. You can also bundle all of these class files into a jar file to package it up more neatly and distribute it as a single library.
Does Ruby have any features like these when you want to share your functionality with your coworkers but you don't want them to be able to modify the source (unless they ask you for the actual .rb source file and tell you that they want to change it)?
I believe the feature you are looking for is called "trust" (and a source code control repository). Ruby isn't compiled in the same way that Java is, so no you can't do this.
I have to say your are in a rough position, not wanting to share code with a coworker. However, given that this is an unassailable constraint perhaps you could change the nature of the problem.
If you have a coworker that needs access to some service provided by a library of yours, perhaps you could expose it by providing a web/rest service instead of as a .rb file.
This way you can hide your code behind a web server, and if there is a network architecture that allows for low latency making these service calls, you can effectively achive the same goal.
Trust is a lot easier though.
edit:
Just saw this on HN: http://blog.astrails.com/2009/5/12/ruby-http-require, allows a ruby file to include another file through http instead of the filesystem.
Ruby is
A dynamic, interpreted, open source programming language with a focus on simplicity and productivity.
So like all interpreted languages, you need to give the source code to anyone who want's to execute your program/script.
By the way searching "compiled ruby" on google returned quiet a few results.
I don't think there is one. Ruby is purely an interpreted language, which means ruby interprets your source code directly in order to run it. Java is compiled, so there's an intermediate bytecode (the .class). You can obfuscate your ruby if you really wish, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
Just to make sure you realize, however, upwards of 95% of Java can be decompiled back into source using various free utilities, so in reality, Java's compilation isn't much better than distributing Ruby source.
This is not a language specific problem and one that can be managed more effectively through source control software.
There is a library called ruby2c that compiles a subset of Ruby into C code (which you can then compile into native code, if you want).
It was actually originally written as a Ruby code obfuscator (but has since been used for lots of other stuff, including Ruby Arduino development).