Confident Ruby is Finished!

22 comments

1. Avdi, the PDF preview is really promising! Also, I think I’m going to contribute to quarto in the next few weeks when I finish an ebook project. I’m really glad I subscribed to your feed 🙂 Congratulations for finishing the book!

   The example PDF’s table of contents doesn’t show the actual book’s contents, though. I scanned your post twice to see whether there’s another preview of the ToC alone. I’d love to have a look at that!

   1. That’s a good point, I’ll have to see if I can hack up a PDF that includes the full TOC.

      1. Wouldn’t it be feasible to just copy & paste the real ToC from your final PDF and save it as a new file? Then you needn’t worry about keeping the real ToC and the excerpt’s pages aligned. That’d work for me at least.

2. Just purchased the Gold Edition, Avdi, and I’m glad I did! Bravo! Congratulations on work well done, obviously a labor of love!

   1. Thank you thank you thank you!

3. I read until the 100th page, it is full of weird patterns. Even though I haven’t finished yet I strongly recommend. Well done keep the great work!

   1. 🙂

4. Any chance of a print edition?

   1. Yes! Stay tuned.

      1. Awesome, thanks!

5. Hi Avdi,

   I have to say that I’m really enjoying putting the principles and patterns in Confident Ruby into practice in an existing project which until now was not so much confident as much as a gibbering wreck on the inside that was just about holding it together to the outside world 🙂

   I’ve just noticed a couple of small errata – well, one that gets repeated, really – and didn’t see anywhere else to report it. Hope you don’t mind me doing it here.

   In section “4.5 Return a status object”, the ImportStatus object listing on page 227 defines self.failed as setting @status to a value of :failed – but the instance method failed? checks for a value of :error. This is replicated in the yielding version on p231.

   Like I said, small 🙂 Thanks again for a great book.

   1. Thanks very much for catching that, I’ve queued it up in my list of errata!

6. “You want to ensure that inputs are of a specific core type. For instance, you are
   writing a method with logic that assumes Integer inputs.”

   The question is why would you want to do that. If an object doesn’t respond to messages you send to it, it’ll fail sooner or later. I’ve found only two reasons for doing that:
   1. You want to ensure it’s integer because an object responding to * and / would still lead to a disaster. As in:
   class FakeInteger
   def *(other); 42; end
   def /(other); 24; end
   end
   2. To give a good error message. I think doesn't respond to to_int' is a better message thandoesn’t respond to *’.

   It may be out of scope of the book to explain that.

   1. Hmmm… I rather thought I HAD explained that.

      1. It’s explainer later on in the book.

7. Point.new(*args.first.split(‘:’).map(&:to_i))

   Was it intentional that ‘:10 and ‘:’ and ’10:0:0′ would be converted w/o an error? I’m enjoying the book, but don’t like this.

8. Errata: Page 72 at bottom of page (PDF) “input values form external sources” s/b ‘input values from external sources’ IMHO.

9. Love it! FYI, another errata: Page 136 at top of page (PDF): “If it’s possible to for a variable” s/b “If it’s possible for a variable”

10. Dig the PDF preview.

    What do you think about using ensure for bouncer methods?

    def filter_through_pipe(command, message)
      __checked_popen(command, "w+", ->{message}) do |process|
        ____process.write(message)
        ____process.close_write
        ____process.read
      __end
    ensure
      __unless $?.success?
        ____raise ArgumentError, " $?.exitstatus}"
      __end
    end
    

11. Great stuff, Avdi. This will definitely make more effective in my work.

    One possible erratum…on page 83, where you rewrite the example to use named objects STOP, CAUTION, and PROCEED, the next_state method doesn’t use them for the return values. Shouldn’t it?

    For example: when STOP then PROCEED, rather than when STOP then ‘proceed’?

    1. Thanks, I’ve added this to my list of errata for my next revision!

Comments are closed.