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.
Related
I am new to Sublime and to Ruby. I have been developing Java for 10+ years, and what I miss, is: autocomplete, in the meaning of:
using: Sublime3 (ok if had to switch to 2 to get this option) + Rails.
issue: I want: I type: "MyClass. [DOT]" say: I type the dot
and then: a list of methods of this class are displayed. These methods that are defined by default (as of heritage), and those that I have defined, in the class definition.
I am aware of the 'duck-typing' style, such: also these methods, that this object itself is able to use, would be a plus.
While, I would be happy with the first two (heritage and self.methods).
Yes I am aware that the Ruby-community is sort of pure coding; I like it also, and I also appreciate an editor that helps.
I have read through answers in GITHUB, and I could not figure out if that is existing or not .. it seems, the Ruby-people do not understand this Java-coding idea.
Thank you for any link or answer.
Sublime is a text editor, is not an IDE. In the Java world you are likely used to write your code with IDE (such as Netbeans, Eclipse, Intellij IDEA), I have never seen Java developers using a pure text editor.
There are some IDE for Ruby. However, the highly dynamic and loosely typed nature of Ruby makes it really hard to provide an accurate IntelliSense code completion. Both the assumption that the Ruby community pretends to be pure, or Ruby-people do not understand Java-coding idea are simply wrong. Several Ruby developers approached the language from Java, therefore they are perfectly aware of how the Java world works.
If you feel more comfortable with an IDE, try to search for a Ruby one. RubyMine is a great product, and if you come from Java world you may already be familiar with Intellij IDEA. There are also plugins for Netbeans and Eclipse, but the runtime evaluation capabilities of RubyMine are far superior and it's also the most up-to-date.
Most of text editors, such as TextMate, Sublime Text, Atom, etc understands Ruby and provide Ruby syntax highlighting and additional features, some of them even autocompletion, but IDE-level features as you would expect from the Java world.
Autocomplete is possible in Sublime - there are several packages for Python, including the excellent Anaconda plugin. Coverage for Ruby isn't quite as deep, but I did find SublimeRsense which may fit your needs. The README implies that it's for Atom, but I think that's just left over from another repo. I'm not a Rubyist, so I didn't install it, but the directions looked pretty straightforward.
That being said, depending on your personal preferences and knowledge, an IDE may work better for you. Of course, it'll take up a lot more room on your HD and in memory, and may get in your way at times, but with that comes many more features that you won't find in a text editor, even one as advanced as Sublime. Try them both out, and use what works for you. Personally, I prefer Sublime over IDEs, as I find many of their "features" annoying, but you'll have to see what best matches your style and needs.
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.
Does anybody use the Class Designer much in Visual Studio?
I have downloaded the Modeling Power Toys for 2005 and have been impressed with what I've seen so far. The MSDN Class Designer Blog doesn't seem to have been updated for a while but it still looks quite useful.
Is the Class Designer a quick way to build the basic application or should I just work out on paper and then start coding?
Thanks
As a visualization tool, or for exploratory purposes (drawing up multiple options to see what they look like) it's not bad, but generally I find the object browser does fine for most stuff I care about.
As a code generation tool, it's a terrible idea.
The whole idea that we will design all our code structure first, then fill in the blanks with small bits of implementation is fundamentally broken.
The only time you actually know what the code structure should look like, is if you've done the exact same thing before - however then you can just use your previous code, and you don't need to draw up any new code in any kind of designer.
If you decide ahead of time to use a particular class structure before you've actually tried to solve the problem, there is a 100% chance that you will pick the wrong design, and shoot yourself in the foot.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: No, not at all. There's a reason it hasn't been updated.
[EDIT] # MrBrutal - Sorry - do you mean to generate code or just represent a design? Because I took your question as to generate code for you.
I guess this is old, but I use it a lot. It could definitely be improved, but I find it extremely useful to be able to visualize my class structure, and to be able to jump to a specific class or method by clicking on it visually.
It's also slightly easier to add classes/interfaces with than the solution explorer, although the new files always end up in the root folder, instead of the same folder as the CD.
The main benefit I find is to be able to see a group of closely related classes at once. I think the best approach might be to have a single CD for each code folder/namespace.
I've used it a couple of times to get some decent looking class diagrams to put in presentations/blogposts etc. But thats about it...
Any suggestions on other simple UML/class diagram tools that is easy to use and create some nice looking diagrams? Must be able to generate diagrams from .NET code.
I have tried it out couple of times, mainly for viewing existing classes.
If it would show all the relationships, it would be more usefull. Now it only shows inheritation.
I find it useful sometimes, more often for documentation afterwards.
It's a new little utility, but I don't think you get the full functionality in VS Pro - I think you need Architect's Edition.
The comments here suggest that few people find the class designer useful.
Amusing to note that Microsoft designed the class designer to be a useful replacement to useless UML (UML diagrams being untrustworthy once they lose synchronisation with source code).
The trouble with class diagrams is that they tell us what we already know.
I only use the class designer to display my existing classes, but I don't use it the other way, e.g., design your classes there then let it generate the code.
Someone on here recently recommended BWToolkit, and it really impressed me, so I started googling for more IB plug-ins. I've found a couple on random blogs, but haven't been able to find any kind of repository/aggregator for them. Anyone know where I can find more of these?
Thanks.
I just created a page on CocoaDev to list them [edit: question originally just said “Interface Builder plug-ins”, did not mention Cocoa frameworks], with the two I know of listed.
Well that's a good start. I guess that wiki page is the de-facto repository, for now. Seems like there's not much out there.
You are not looking for Interface Builder plug-ins. You think you are, but you aren't. BWToolkit, the example you use in your question, is not an Inteface Builder plug-in. Brandon bills it as an Interface Builder plug-in but it is actually a framework and a plug-in. The framework contains the actual controls. The plug-in contains the integration with Interface Builder.
So really, what you are looking for are frameworks that contain or provide Interface Builder plug-ins. I have changed your question to reflect that, so it is more likely to be found by people using Google to search for similar things in the future.
I know what I am looking for. Not all frameworks contain IB plugins. I am looking for a specific subset of frameworks, those which contain IB plugins. An IB-plugin without a framework is useless, therefore the framework part is assumed. I am NOT looking for regular old frameworks, so stop trying to change my question to that. Your additions only seem to be confusing people.
I have reported your post, hopefully moderators will be able to stop your obnoxious behavior.
"Without a framework, what would you have to plug in to IB?"
Your words, not mine. Anyways, I'm done arguing this with you. Just remember that I can roll back for every time that you edit.
It's clear you have a lot of experience in this field, but instead of offering answers you decided to nitpick where there are no nits to pick.
Additionally, you have not "changed the question to refelct that," you have changed the question to a completely different question. I would have though that after four rollbacks you would relaize that you're doing more harm than good. Just stop, okay?
Of course, Chris Hanson is absolutely correct when he says that an Interface Builder plugin is useless without an accompanying framework. Interface Builder merely provides a graphical way to manage objects in a framework; without the framework itself, Interface Builder has nothing to manage.
However, I do think that there is a completely valid sort of Interface Builder plugin that wouldn't necessitate the installation of an accompanying framework, and that would be one that provides Interface Builder integration features for objects in Cocoa/Cocoa Touch which would otherwise appear as just generic objects.
For those of you who come to this page Google, please recognise the difference between Interface Builder plugins and frameworks: even the examples mentioned above work on frameworks (they could be Foundation, AppKit, UIKIt, etc.)