Thu, Jul 13, 2006
Honestly, it failed to grab me. It looked like a nice enough language, but its syntax is sort of a hybrid of Perl and Python. Given that I already know both Perl and Python, I couldn't see the point of spending much time on Yet Another Language, especially one that was more of the same.
Still, buzz continued to grow. I picked up a copy of Hal Fulton's book The Ruby Way. This one included Appendices explicitly for Perl and Python programmers, as well as several "real-world" examples, so I gave it another shot.
Actually, I started to give it another shot. But since the Appendices were squarely aimed at me, I started there. Big mistake -- I fell asleep. Several times. I put the book aside and figured I was done.
Three years later, in 2004, along came Ruby on Rails. Wow. Do I really need to tell you how impressive Rails is? But at the time I wasn't working on any web applications, I still wasn't thrilled with Ruby as a language, and I certainly wasn't thrilled at the prospect of learning a whole new language just to write web apps.
More recently I've been looking at the cavalcade of Rails clones. I think I've settled on CakePHP as the best documented, most mature, and easiest to learn. But just as I was getting started, it occured to me....
As I tell students, the best way to learn is by going straight to the source, not by reading the nth re-hash by someone else. I'm still planning to learn Cake, but really, why not start with the best? (Or at least with the original.)
Ok, back to Ruby. In the years since Programming Ruby was published by Addison-Wesley, the Pragmatic Programmers have started their own publishing company, The Pragmatic Bookshelf. Which brings me (finally) to the ostensible subject of this review, Learn to Program by Chris Pine.
The purpose of Learn to Program is, well, to learn to program. The language just happens to be Ruby. Honestly, I don't even remember when I first learned to program -- I must have been 7 or 8 years old. (BASIC, on a Timex-Sinclair 1000, if you must know). I can't really comment on how well the book succeeds in that goal, because I'm clearly not the target audience.
I read through the book fairly quickly, since I already understand the concepts. A couple of things concerned me, though. The explanation of "variables" seemed overly complicated. I think the author was trying to explain references, without actually using the word "reference".
Ditto his explanation of recursion -- I admire the attempt to suggest that recursion is a perfectly natural concept (the title of Chapter 10, on recursion, is "There's Nothing New to Learn in Chapter 10"), especially since most CS1 textbooks for imperative languages make it far too complicated. But c'mon. If it's so easy, why does "nothing new" take 17 pages to explain?
So I can't tell you whether it's a good book for a beginner, but it was a good book for me. The truth is, the only way to learn a new programming language is to write code. You can't just sit and read a book about programming; you need to do it yourself. In this, the author succeeds wonderfully. The exercises he suggests (under the heading "A Few Things to Try") are geared toward putting the concepts you've just read about directly into practice. And they're straightforward enough that, instead of thinking "oh great, another programming exercise," you'll be thinking "hey, that sounds easy enough," and you'll dive right in.
Even better, they're fun. No lame "Hello, world" or farenheit-to-celsius converters here. (Oops, I think I just insulted K & R.) Instead you'll find such gems as
Oh, and my impressions of Ruby now that I've written a few short programs? It's kind of a nice language. You can slurp the contents of a file in a single line. It switches seamlessly between fixed-sized integer types and "big" integers. (As it turns out, so does Python, but I'd never seen it before). YAML is nicer than Perl's Data::Dumper. I like that you can add easily add methods to built-in classes, even if it's probably a bad idea -- being able to type 3.factorial is coool.
Ruby strikes me as being sort of like Python, if Python had been written by someone who liked Perl. I don't think, though, that it goes the other way: Ruby is not sorta like Perl. It just has enough Perl-ish bits to make the transition less painful.
I'm having trouble deciding on my next Ruby book. I'm leaning toward the Pickaxe Book, but Ruby for Rails looks good, too. After all, that's why I was planning to learn Ruby in the first place.
By the way, click here for some bits of Ruby code. Nothing spectacular, but they're sitting here on my hard drive -- no point in not sharing them.