Looking at the redesign, turns out my why-brand slicer is also a dicer.

damn, that’s much easier on the eyes. I love reading Mauricio’s stuff, but that site is just painful to read.

It’s about time for Mauricio and _why to start writing an advanced ruby book together.

I second andre’s call for an awesomely cooky yet accessible book. etcetera.

People are out on the streets demanding it.

I’m watching out the window and those people in the street… they’re getting kind of violent with their demands. Wait… they’re throwing rocks & stuff! Pitchforks. Look over there! That guy’s lighting a Molotov cocktail! He’s throwing it! It broke through the win… BOOM ! That was close. They seem to be chanting: “Why, Mauricio! Why, Mauricio! Where’s the book? Where’s the Advanced Ruby book?!!!”

Why and Mauricio – can you help us?

_why: thank you, I’ll add some javascript to switch stylesheets when it’s done.

I don’t know about the book, but I sure don’t want people to have to choose between their eyesight and reading eigenclass. As of today, it’s 20% darker. (why didn’t anybody tell me that eigenclass kills your eyes before? I normally set my monitors to ~75% brightness, contrast idem, so I never noticed it until I saw this posting, I moved to another box and ouch my eyes)

andre, LninYo, phil: isn’t the poignant guide enough to appease the rioters? If they just want more meta, all they have to do is assault _why’s place, no, better siege it until he yields chapter 7 }:-)

What would “advanced ruby” cover anyway? General+interesting = hard to achieve.

mfp: i don’t mind the brightness at all. the whole web is made of white. it’s just a gift, just for entertainment.

eigenclass is in effect.

mfp: I’d say it would cover anything you want ;P Me, I’d like to see in-depth docs of C extension writing, and a description of ruby internals (is the RHG translation project dead? I wish I knew japanese :/ )

andre: which ruby internals? JRuby’s? Rubinius’? Matz’s traditional Ruby in C? Matz’s traditional Ruby in C with YARV ? The new OCaml implementation? (RedCamel – think PUGS ; watch out for the vapors, though)

The traditional one, I guess… or all of them :D Didn’t know about an the ocaml thing, thanks for the heads-up!

Actually… erm… got a link?

andre: Heed the warning about RedCaml and vapor. It’s more like I’m daring someone to actually do it.

Oh d’oh. I guess it would be weird to build something so dynamic using something so static.

andre: How so? The current Ruby implementation is built in C which isn’t very dynamic. And PUGs (Perl 6 prototype) is built in Haskell which has some similarities to OCaml. One of the nice things about OCaml over Haskell is that OCaml supports OO programming and the ‘ml’ part makes it great for creating compilers/interpreters/DSLs.

C is all dynamic with void* :P As for objects, I remember matz saying once that he didn’t use C++ for ruby because he didn’t want to mix his language’s object orientation with the implementation language’s one. I tried to learn ocaml a few times, but there’s always something stopping me… too bad that “practical ocaml” book is horrible according to everyone :/

_why: the world might be made of #fff white, but I live in a W-on-B console and avoid sunlight. This is definitely a good thing:

“But, I think the site has come a long way in the past 14 hours! No more eye cancer! Thanks!”

So, really, thanks for helping me realize that my stylesheets were a public health issue :-) Plus you motivated me to finish the new logo.

/me doesn’t like the Objective part of OCaml that much.

I wish someone would write a ruby to scheme compiler – the scheme-to-native step has had a lot of really good work put into it.