I feel like I have a simple desire that no one can satisfy: I want to be able to graph a set of points, and I am using Ruby 1.9.2.
I would like to use Gruff or Scruffy, since these seem to be the easiest to use. However, they both rely on rmagick, and it seems that many other libraries do to. Rmagick isn't compatible with Ruby 1.9 though. (not to mention, I've read that you should just stay away from it anyways...I would enjoy hearing reasons)
I am using wxRuby for a project, but in the future I will be needing simple graphs in other places, such as online and just command line scripts. Therefore, if someone has a solution for wxRuby, that is great, but an all-encompassing solution would be even better.
Thank you!
P.S.
I've seen gnuplot, but it would be a bit overkill. If that's my best option, I can live with that. I've also seen RGL, but I didn't look too long at it.
EDIT: Just to add, neither Gruff or Scruffy have been updated since August 2009, and I would like to find something that is at least semi-maintained. SVG::Graph looks very powerful, but hasn't been updated since Sept. '09. There is a fork of it on rubygems though which says it is 1.9 compatible, maybe I will try that if I can't get Scruffy or Gruff to play nice.
There may be some wx lib you could use.
Barring that I use rmagick with 1.9 (what's your platform?)
and it appears there have been some updates to those gems, though not new releases in awhile.
http://ruby-toolbox.com/categories/graphing.html
Related
I was wondering if I could use codes based on ruby 2.4 in ruby 3 (as in the programs, methodology, syntax and function names). I would like to slowly migrate to Ruby 3, but I would like to know if everything would be stable.
Do I need to download some package to make it stable? Is Ruby 3 backwards compatible (i heard they are not that much as they are fast innovator's, let's say compared to python which has backwards compatibility for all versions of 3.x but not that much of an innovator)?
Should I go through everything that I have written to make it compatible?
A bit of a tangent, but would it even be necessary for me to migrate to Ruby 3? I would presume that Ruby 2.4 already has enough features and updates for now for me to continue using it, and if I do not go up a version, I can always use Ruby 2.7.
Thanks!
The short answer is pretty No.
You will have as many compatibility issues as many legacy code you have.
Try to reach some resources like https://www.fastruby.io/blog/ruby/rails/versions/compatibility-table.html
But still, If you have well-written tests, they will fail, and deprecation warnings will occur. Those will be some kind of map for you(by fixing issues) to reach a new version.
I installed HornetsEye, that "real-time computer vision library" for some experiments with my webcam. I want to know if are there other alternatives in ruby?
RMagick comes to mind, but it is not very very performant ...
I have not tested it yet personally, but since OpenCV is definitely the way to go from C++, the ruby-opencv gem could be interesting. I could only find this one actively developped, though.
http://github.com/ruby-opencv/ruby-opencv
Perhaps Camellia Image Processing Library interests you because.
It has been written in C but has a native wrapper for RUBY and its performance is very good.
How good is the new Ruby Installer for Windows?
I asked before about why Ruby was so slow on windows and now I've seen some impressive benchmarks showing marked speed improvements with the minGW compilation used in the new installers and am curious how it has worked for people who have tried it?
How many gems are broken for this version? Any big ones you have been bit by not on this list?
I've played with it a fair bit. It's definitely faster, both because of the new YARV VM in 1.9.1, and the use of a C compiler created sometime this century.
Pure Ruby gems are pretty reliable, obviously. Getting mswin32 binaries to work is a hit/miss situation (mostly miss IMHO), and native mingw32 binaries are still the exception, not the rule.
I wanted FXRuby on Windows, and went through the following to get it: Getting FXRuby Going with Ruby 1.9.1 and the new RubyInstaller
So it depends what gems you care about and how handy you are with build scripts and such. Despite the heroic efforts of Louis Lavena and the Ruby Installer contributors, Ruby on Windows remains a second-class citizen.
As you've already noticed, the RubyInstaller guys maintain a list of gems known to work, or not, but this is pretty fluid. The mailing list is usually pretty responsive to questions as well.
It's quite a bit faster, the exact experience varying according to your application. For low-volume Rails stuff, for example, I think you would probably not notice much: database access doesn't really change, for example.
Easiest thing is to try it. If you save your ruby\bin and ruby\lib directories first, you can install over your existing Ruby and be able to switch between the two. I think only those two directories are affected - it seems to work for me at least.
Once you have an installed mingw32 instance, start with the gem installs. The ones that have compiled components will hopefully already have mingw32 versions. Failing that, you could try modifying with the mswin32 versions from your "old" lib - I haven't done this myself and have only the vaguest memory of reading something that suggested it may work...
At the bare minimum, the mingw32 binaries run fine. If you start installing some esoteric gems, you might get some install failures. I highly recommend using Ruby on Linux or Mac, everything works better on those platforms. You will actually be spending time writing Ruby code instead of yak shaving your way to get gems to configure and build properly. I am writing this based on installing Ruby 1.9.1 mingw bins. The 1.8 version might be more stable. The msvc Ruby 1.9.1 binaries have their own separate set of issues, mostly run time ones.
I've wanted to learn Ruby for some time and even started to learn a little bit. I then got distracted and for some reason went with Python. I have now however decided that even though my current project is in Python, I will also be learning Ruby and Ruby on Rails.
If somebody were to ask me what version of Python to start with I'd suggest 2.6 because 3 breaks compatibility with all the tutorials they would google. Knowing so little about Ruby, what version should I install on my computer? Is there a major difference between any two versions etc etc?
The version you learn is not that important.
While there will eventually be a shift from the more stable 1.8.x series, 1.9 isn't game breaking in a way where you will be disadvantaged.
Rails recommends version 1.8.7, so if you're going to be learning rails, I'd stick with that. This book is pretty good.
I don't think Ruby has had that many breaking changes - except 1.9 onwards. So any version in the 1.8.x should be fine.. pick the latest stable version.
Rails on the other hand has changed dramatically in Rails 2.
If you're going to be working in Windows, go with the current most stable one-click installer. At time of writing, that would still probably be the 1.8.6-26, although 1.8.6-27 is imminent. 1.8.7 is a small increment and I'm very uncertain about the status of 1.9.1 on the platform.
On OSX or other *nix varieties I'd be prepared to be somewhat more adventurous: the current production Rails release (2.3.2) is supposed to be 1.9.1-compatible (although that may not be the case with all third-party libraries for some time) and learning might be more entertaining with the latest version. It should run a good but faster, too.
Ruby 1.9 makes a few breaking changes, but not like Python 3. Any old Ruby tutorials should work just fine for 1.9. There's nothing like, for example, Python changing print and merging range() with xrange().
It really doesn't make that much difference. The core language hasn't changed a lot — 1.9 is just a lot faster and has gained some new features.
There are some changes that broke some libraries, but those have more to do with the finer implementation details rather than what you learn in basic tutorials, so it shouldn't hurt you. If you want to go with 1.8 for the better library support, that's fine. If you want to go with 1.9 for the better core features, that's fine as well. It doesn't make that much of a difference when you're just starting off.
If you're planning on building stuff that you don't release to the public, that makes use of lots of libraries, 1.8.7 or 1.8.6. If you're writing libraries that will be released to the public, please, please, please make sure they work in Ruby 1.9. Ruby 1.9 is a superior interpreter, but we're stuck with 1.8.x because so many libraries are incompatible with it right now.
http://isitruby19.com/
Learn the latest version. Current latest version is 2.4., but when higher versions are out, go for them immediately. Ruby team pays attention to only release finished work, you don't need to be afraid to install the newest one.
There are multiple Ruby implementations in the works right now. Which are you looking forward to and why? Do you actively use a non-MRI implementation in production?
Some of the options include:
Ruby MRI (original 1.8 branch)
YARV (official 1.9)
JRuby
Rubinius
IronRuby - Ironruby.net
MagLev (Thanks Julian) Github link
MacRuby (Thanks Damien Pollet)
Maglev. It will have the speed benefit of all the optimization that has gone into a major Smalltalk VM over many, many year. Plus it will automatically persist all your data pretty much automatically so there is no more need to monkey around with Object-Relational mapping layers and so on.
Ruby 1.9 (YARV) gives us a good idea as to where ruby is headed, but I wouldn't recommend using it for production use. While it's certainly much faster than 1.8, even some parts of the syntax keep changing, so I don't think you could call it stable. It does have some interesting new features and syntax which will surely find their way into all the other implementations over time.
JRuby and IronRuby are useful in that they give ruby access to a whole range of new libraries and environments where ruby couldn't be used otherwise. I've not found much use for them myself yet, but think it's great that they exist. They may allow ruby to infiltrate corporate environments where it wouldn't otherwise be permitted. That can only be a good thing.
Rubinius and Maglev are probably the most interesting projects, but also those where their benefit to the community is likely to be furthest into the future. Rubinius may well develop into a cutting edge 'pure' VM for the ruby language, allowing ruby code to run much faster than it can now. Maglev too seems extremely promising, backed as it is by 20+ years of VM experience. It will also provide features over and beyond a standard VM, but of course these will come at the cost of code portability.
Overall though, what I'm most excited about is the competition between these implementations. Having competing projects all working to make ruby better can only make the ruby ecosystem stronger. From what I've seen too, while the competition exists it is friendly; each project giving and taking ideas from each other. The work done by the JRuby and Rubinius teams in creating a ruby spec is probably the most important outcome so far, as it will help ensure that all implementations remain compatible.
jRuby is stable and reliable today. Maglev is very promising.
No one mentioned MacRuby yet? I guess it's a bit Mac-specific now, but it could probably be made to compile to the GNU or Étoilé objective-c runtimes too.
Also, I'm waiting for Maglev :)
What about Enterprise Ruby? This has been out there for a while.
https://www.phusionpassenger.com/enterprise