Playing Games with "Ruids"
in [Ruby]
|
From: thunk on 1 Apr 2010 05:50 The contributor-side members of this group seem, perhaps, used to a behavior of glancing at posts and picking out simple issues of interest or experience to share with program beginners and temporarily stuck peers. There are 8 Ruid Modules. Knowing, seeing, chatting about, touching, feeling, probing only one at a time, I suspect, will make one only make more curious, ...or if you have some of the "dark side" in you - more impatient, or frustrated, or even cause some sort of testosterone driven territorial response. PERHAPS the author spent a day typing in faked output, designed fake "Ruids", writing up how the concept came to be and such to assist communications. ..ERHAPS the author is at least as surprised as a couple of other people here that there could be something new to be contributed to the powerful network of Ruby tools. I believe a FULLY FUNCTIONING FrameWork could be put together without crossing the proprietary lines of several of those modules without heroic efforts, perhaps the author was really close to figuring out how to do that, and perhaps that can happen. ..RHAPS the author is an illusionist, and perhaps he is delusional. ..HAPS there will be a link to a fully functioning commercial site in about 4 months posted here and there will be a clue that it is powered by Ruby Ruids? and .APS this is really just a elaborate April Fool Joke paid for by the folks at..... Thunk ..PS Let us chat further only of simpler things, keep it all pleasant - get out the lava lamps, and let the Ru'id thing go dormant until such time as proprietary issues can be replaced with demonstration modules, and a living breathing "Ruid 'machine'" can be delivered up. Anything less, in my most sincere opinion, will only frustrate almost everybody. That was never the intention.
From: thunk on 1 Apr 2010 06:15 Fé er frænda róg ok flæðar viti ok grafseiðs gata aurum fylkir. (source of discord among kinsmen and fire of the sea and path of the serpent.) ok skára þverrir ok hirðis hatr. umbre vísi lamentation of the clouds and ruin of the hay-harvest and abomination of the shepherd.
From: thunk on 1 Apr 2010 06:30 On Apr 1, 5:15 am, thunk <gmkol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Fé er frænda róg > > ok flæðar viti > ok grafseiðs gata > aurum fylkir. > > (source of discord among kinsmen > and fire of the sea > and path of the serpent.) > > ok skára þverrir > ok hirðis hatr. > umbre vísi > > lamentation of the clouds > and ruin of the hay-harvest > and abomination of the shepherd. OHG. has reita vereda, (44) reda, chariot, rîtari, ritari horseman, rider, rîtan ride, reiti paratus, gareiti biga, falera, quadriga, AS rád riding, journey, way, rad cart, chariot, rídan to ride, ridda knight, rider, raed, hraed, geraed swift, quick, ready, ONorse rîða to ride, greiða to make ready, etc., OIrish riadaim I drive, reid, OWelsh ruid, OBreton roed plain, smooth. From this group cannot be separated Goth. ga-redan to have a mind to, for in the compounds ur-redan, faura-ga-redan this redan has the meaning arrange, determine. This at once connects ONorse ráða, AS.. ráedan, OHG. râtan advice, etc., with it. In the German gerät advice, tool, harness we have the two meanings connected. In the Slavic languages we have two series, rad- and rend- , which belong here. The first, giving Russian rad prepared, glad, Polish rada advice, etc., is obviously derived from the German. The nasalised form, which, however, in Lithuanian and Lettish also occurs unnasalised, is unquestionably older. We have OBulgarian redu, Bulg. red, Pol. rzad order, Lith. rinda row, redas order, Let. redit, rinda, rist, ridu to arrange. redan to have a mind to... ONorse rîða to ride, I'm just sure it is only me...
From: thunk on 1 Apr 2010 07:24 bottom.bottom.bottom line... I take some folks sailing and they look out on the water, then glance at their watches. I take others out sailing and we gaze in wonder at the patterns in the water, and the sky, and cry. There's an amazing fact here somewhere, we just don't "see" things all exactly the same way. Most of us know this, and even learn to enjoy it? _Why wrote some documentation for Shoes that made me want to laugh and cry and the same time... what genius, what what? But let's get useful. Step-wise-refinement, a fad that has probably dropped off the software radar screen? Works for me, or worked for me anyway. It has allowed me to do things "in my sleep" that others don't seem to be as likely to arrive at in their approach things. Thinking there is only one approach, or some close variant on this seems almost impossible to me in this in age. But there are probably "extremes" that one extreme cannot see any value to, that the other extreme cannot live without? It doesn't matter much to me, I found what works for me, and one of my "tricks" is to twist the work around until it fits a mold I do well with. Except for "Wee", that is related somehow to SeaSide, and speaks to me, my only other even marginally successful web work was done in Raw Rack. You Web guys are in a world I can't fathom - test wise or any otherwise. But I think I recognize problems, and I genuinely enjoy finding innovative solutions. (And innovative to ME can be something done at Stanford years ago or not - if they haven't solved the problem I'm looking at, or any that I see that exist out there with commercial potential to my thinking - then why should I care?) This domain stuff I'm doing would be almost trivial to do procedurally - but then would become an instant maintenance monster. No fun for anybody, rewarding on to the type of person that needs only to be paid by the hour? On the other-hand what I am doing keeps me fascinated because it is "revealing itself" as I work with it. And that is, I'm guessing, why it calls to some of us, oh yes, it seems to, and repels others with a somewhat narrower view of things. With respect to the documentation that _why produced for shoes, I really just wanted "simple definitions" and he was giving me cartoons. But, good gosh, I'd sooner cut of my fingers than tell him "to get serious". The man was doing what he did his way and I just naturally, cannot fathom the gall it would take to tell a man working to share something how he should do it. And lest somebody should infer that I'm comparing myself to _why, well I'm not. He was the real thing, I'm doing only the best I know how to do, the best way I know how to do it. No more, and no less. and that's the last on this.
From: Seebs on 1 Apr 2010 12:50
On 2010-04-01, thunk <gmkoller(a)gmail.com> wrote: > bottom.bottom.bottom line... Is that you aren't going to tell us what you're doing. > With respect to the documentation that _why produced for shoes, I > really just wanted "simple definitions" and he was giving me > cartoons. Two major differences: 1. He had working code that could be used, which made it possible for people who were curious to mess with it. 2. The cartoons and such were a very useful way of communicating some things, but useful ONLY once you had seen the "simple definitions". Back in the day, the first time someone pointed me at the poigniant guide, when I had no other information about Ruby, I spent about five minutes on it and concluded that this was some kind of crazy empty fad without any substance, because the best thing people could point me at on it was only marginally lucid. Later, once I'd gotten pointed at a basic summary of the approximate general area of human endeavor in which Ruby existed, I found the poigniant guide quite enlightening. That kind of communication works ONLY when you have first given people a ballpark feel for what kind of thing you're talking about. Without that initial ranging information, it's largely useless. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! |