RubyMotion does not support
require
in code (only in RakeFile).
Is there a way to use useful classes built into Ruby but not into RubyMotion ? For instance, I'd like to be able to do a
name=Pathname.new("/path/to/some/file").basename
rather than look for Cocoa equivalent
Pathname is one of those pieces of the Ruby Standard Library that are not available in RubyMotion.
You can try with MotionBundler, but I personally haven't been very lucky with that.
I'd suggest to use the Cocoa equivalent.
Something like:
name = "/path/to/some/file".lastPathComponent
Not that bad, anyway.
Related
I've been reading the README for the MSpec project, and though it does a lot of explaining about what it is and (what it is not) with several contrasts between itself and RSpec, there's nothing about why it exists. Would using RSpec (at the time of starting MSpec) have caused problems in some way, or was it missing some features? Are these things still true? Could an extension have been (or be) written for RSpec that would do this? Is it something political?
There's obviously a lot of documentation and examples for RSpec, more features and more updates to the library, and since MSpec seems harder to use IMO (considering the differences in feature set and my own comfort level with RSpec) I'd be very interested if anyone knows the reasons. Perhaps that sounds critical, but that's not my point, I'm just trying to supply some context - there are likely to be good reasons for all of this and that's what I wish to find out.
From the README:
MSpec attempts to use the simplest Ruby language features so that beginning
Ruby implementations can run the Ruby specs.
This was designed for incomplete implementations (Specifically Rubinius) of the base Ruby language. It doesn't use all the language features of Ruby, so it's easier to bootstrap your implementation to the point where you can run mspec's.
If you aren't creating a new implementation for the Ruby language, then you shouldn't use this.
Does an (experimental) class browser exist for Ruby?
I am talking about a class browser/editor combination similar to that of most Smalltalk implementations (i.e. focused on [runtime] classes/objects instead of .rb files)
P.S.: it looks like pry is already able to do a lot of the things that would be needed by a smalltalk style class browser? https://speakerdeck.com/u/rahult/p/pry-an-irb-alternative-on-steroids
P.S.2: Looks like the Seaside Smalltalk framework has a web browser based class browser
P.S.3: MagLev/Webtools is the closest I have found yet:
P.S.4: Apparently http://tibleiz.net/code-browser/index.html has Ruby support and is able to present a Smalltalk like class browser:
Check out the maglev/webtools project on github, as well as the rubymirrors gem. It already provides a class browser and workspace for multiple Ruby implementations, and a graphical debugger works on MagLev as well (not so much on MRI).
If you want to build one, the easiest would be to use MOOSE and build the browser with Glamour, on top of a Ruby parser written in PetitParser. Then you could use Pharo as your Ruby IDE.
You can have a look at the Maglev Database Explorer [1, 2] as well.
[1] Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27mS1BNP7wQ
[2] Gem: https://github.com/matthias-springer/maglev-database-explorer-gem
There is. It is called Reflexive. https://github.com/dolzenko/reflexive
(I've never taken the time to try it though, so I am curious about other experiences with it.)
I have no experience with it (and it is old), but may be rbbr still works.
I am interested in creating a command line application with ruby that would require moderately complex interaction with the user. I would like to use ncurses for this.
What is the best gem for working with ruby and ncurses, or should I be using stdlib utilities in ruby?
Ruby includes bindings for the curses library. Despite what the name implies, it will use ncurses if possible.
Third party libraries often provide abstractions on top of either Ruby's curses or their own bindings. For example, ncursesw also wraps the panel, menu and form extensions. When I worked with Ruby's curses, I created my own Window class with proper border support.
If the basic methods are sufficient, I don't see any reason to add a dependency to your project. However, if you want to do fancy things more easily, you should use a library that provides support for what you need.
I have found ncursesw on this Rubygems seach. Seems to be a good gem to start with.
This one appears to have the best readme https://github.com/seanohalpin/ffi-ncurses
I just started learning Ruby coming from Java. In Java you would use packages for a bigger projects. Is there anything equivalent to that in Ruby? Or what is the best way to achieve a package like setting?
The way I'm doing it right now is 'load'ing all the needed class into my new Ruby file. Isn't there a way to tell my current Ruby class to use all other Ruby classes in the same folder?
Cheers,
Mike
There's three kinds of package loading in Ruby:
Explicitly loading a library with require
Implicitly loading a library using autoload
Importing a library with gem
The require method is the most direct and has the effect of loading in and executing that particular file. Since that file may go on to require others, as a matter of convenience, you may end up loading in quite a lot at once.
The autoload method declares a module that will be loaded if you reference a given symbol. This is a common method to avoid loading things that you don't need, but making them automatically available if you do. Most large libraries use this method of loading to avoid dumping every single class into memory at once.
The gem approach is a more formalized way of packaging up a library. Although it is uncommon for applications to be split up into one or more gems, it is possible and provides some advantages. There's no obligation to publish a gem as open-source, you can keep it private and distribute it through your own channels, either a private web site or git repository, for instance, or simply copy and install the .gem file as required.
That being said, if you want to make a library that automatically loads a bunch of things, you might take this approach:
# lib/example.rb
Dir.glob(File.expand_path('example/**/*.rb', File.dirname(__FILE__))).each do |file|
require file
end
This would load all the .rb files in lib/example when you call require 'example'.
You probably want to use require rather than load, since it should take care of circular references.
If you want to grab all the files in a given folder, that's easy enough:
Dir.foreach("lib"){|x| require x}
Your other option is to have a file that manually requires everything, and have your other files require that.
You should also look at wrapping the code in your libraries with a module block, to give them their own namespaces.
That said: rightly or wrongly, I tend to feel that this is the one area -- perhaps the only one -- where Ruby is less powerful than Python, say, or Java.
I understand your feeling. It's an ordinary problem you have to face when coming from another language like Java. I'd say try to study Ruby modules but you deserve a longer reply. So my advice is reading a good Ruby book like Eloquent Ruby.
I am primarily a fluent .NET developer (as can be seen from the amount of posts and threads I make about .NET), but I thought it would be good to learn RoR.
In doing so, I have a few questions about the architecture of the language (Ruby) and the framework (RoR):
1) In .NET, every object is derived from System but inherits System.Object. So when I type System., I get a list of namespaces and then in those namespaces, classes and more namespaces.
Does Ruby not have this sort of hierarchy?
2) In some cases, I don't get the intellisense. For example, I wrote the class as outlined here (http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/HowToSendEmailsWithActionMailer) but in the line recipients user.email, nothing comes up when I type "user.".
Any idea why?
Thank
Dave Thomas (Pragmatic Programmers) has an excellent screencast series on the Ruby object model/metaprogramming. We watched this in a local Ruby user's group. The series isn't free, but it's not expensive either. You might want to check out the free preview to see if you think it is worth your time.
And to give you an answer. Yes, everything in Ruby derives from Object. You can find the docs on this at http://corelib.rubyonrails.org/. Look for the Object class.
I'm not sure why you aren't getting intellisense, partly because you haven't specified your IDE. It's possible that you can't because you've added the method dynamically and no intellisense is available.
If we compare .NET to Rails then yes, there is this kind of hierarchy there. And in general, you can achieve this kind of hierarchy in any Ruby application via using modules.
I guess it's because of Ruby's dynamic nature.
Ruby is a pure OO language meaning that everything from classes to objects derive from the Object class.
Download NetBeans. There is full intellisense support for Ruby and Ruby on Rails.
http://www.netbeans.org/features/ruby/index.html
Intellisense support probably won't get you what you think it will get you. Because Ruby is a dynamic language, Intellisense, or code completion, is difficult. What you will find is that either the drop down is so flooded with possible completions as to be useless. Or in your case nothing at all.
It's not 100% useless, but I have never found it terribly valuable.