Documentation for ruby?

I top post because Gmail sets it up that way when I hit reply.

This is a fine bikeshed, but let’s please get back to Ruby. This
isn’t my-usenet-nitpicks-talk.

–Jeremy

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM, James D. Maher removed_email_address@domain.invalid
wrote:

While replying, I try to write whole sentences that are reasonably

From: Robert D. [mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid]
prefer
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
Cheers


http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com

Read my books:
Ruby in Practice (Ruby in Practice)
My free Ruby e-book (http://humblelittlerubybook.com/)

Or, my blogs:

http://rubyinpractice.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark W. wrote:

| I’m talking about how my mind works, and why I feel the way I do. I
| think it’s logical. If you think my statements aren’t logical, please
| say so. For example, you may think that when you read a post here, you
| do not actually remember the previous post in the thread. I doubt that
| very much, but it’s possible.

The answer to that is a resounding ‘depends’. In 80% of cases, I have to
refer to inline quotes (or, in the worst case, a preceding post), since
I do not devote the majority of my brain cycles to email.

At the moment, I have more attention diverted to email, since I am
waiting for correspondence. There are weeks, though, where email (and
IM, or any form of communication) is on the back burner, getting minimal
attention, as it otherwise would distract me. I suspect, I’m not the
only one who works that way.

| “Everybody” doesn’t think top-posting is an issue. Nor does “everybody”
| consider bottom-posting a “standard.” And I really don’t know what
| you’re analogizing to with the phrase “it’s all words anyway”. Is anyone
| here saying anything remotely like that?

Yes, you are implying that. ‘It’s all the same to me’, to paraphrase
your stance.

| My understanding of the term is where you argue about something in terms
| that presuppose the issue has already been decided. See
| Begging the question - Wikipedia . But I’ll amend my
| criticism to “bare assertion.” :slight_smile:

It’s more than ‘bare assertion’, if those socialized with netiquette
take the ‘top-posting isn’t the best way to use written correspondence
on the web’ ad here to this de facto standard. Of course, it is only
etiquette. However, those that don’t follow etiquette are seen as rude
by those who don’t follow the etiquette.

Much like farting during dinner is, in the proverbial polite company,
frowned upon.

| Also, it’s very tricky to use the
| passive voice in this context. “Is considered rude” by whom? That’s one
| of the cruxes of this discussion.

Let’s see: a good chunk of the Monks of the Scary Devil Monastery,
large parts of the Tom Clancy newsgroup (at least back when I was active
there), and at least 2 people voicing their opinion in this very thread.
this goes beyond ‘bare assertion’, but constitutes a trend. :wink:


Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
Blog: http://justarubyist.blogspot.com

~ A voice crackles in Calvin’s radio:
~ “Enemy fighters at two o’clock!”
~ “Roger. What should I do until then?”
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkg8YTMACgkQbtAgaoJTgL/UnACcCas124Wb6Z6omTEbdISK8JkU
UdgAniS651Ootsn9ndp2EzEfXW9x0XYX
=SR1u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Todd B. wrote:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Avdi G. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

  1. Most of the advocacy for bottom posting I’ve seen is rude and
    dismissive.

This point I agree with, because the advocacy part comes across as a
little selfish.

I still evangelize it, though, as subtly as I can :slight_smile:

I’ve tried that, got poor results, and now take a simple approach: I
try to do as little work as possible, and if someone posts a message I
find hard to read or follow, I will stop reading and move on.

If people top-post and still get the results they are seeking (help,
suggestions, whatever), I guess they have found a working strategy, so
why should they stop.

But if you are going to post anything at all, consider you audience and
make things easy for the reader.

It’s sort of like how you should write code; easy of reading trumps ease
of writing.


James B.

“Inside every large system there’s a small system trying to get out”.
- Chet Hendrickson

From: “Mark W.” removed_email_address@domain.invalid

I’ve been doing this stuff since 1984. It’s only been relatively
recently that I’ve seen the insistence that bottoming is the “one true
way” and the attempted intimidation of anyone who doesn’t agree.

Odd… I’ve been on Usenet since 1986, but my recollection is
somewhat the opposite.

Seems to me bottom-posted inter-quoting was a well-established
standard on the groups I read back then (comp.sys.amiga, other
programming groups).

If memory serves, the occasional newbie top-post would be met
with references to “netiquette”, and requests to not only bottom-
post instead, but also trim for context.

My recollection is top-posting was actively discouraged, but
overall relatively rare until the advent of AOL, Netscape, and
SLIP/PPP connections which opened the floodgates, allowing
residential users onto the Internet by the millions. . . .

Unleashing an army of newbies armed with news and email software,
which, as has already been mentioned elsewhere on this thread,
encouraged top-posting by default. . .

Quotes should be trimmed. :slight_smile:

Agreed 100% :slight_smile:

Regards,

Bill

On May 27, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Todd B. wrote:

I’ll mention one more thing, too, about the topic – and someone may
have beat me to it – is that my eyes work quite a bit faster than my
fingers do (recognizing paragraphs that I’ve seen before with a single
glance, for example), so repetition of previous statements doesn’t
really bother me. It is more important to me with how it’s laid out,
so I can quickly figure out how deep in the thread I am, and who is
responding to who.

The way I read email is with the mouse. I’ll click on each subject
line in the list, and then usually click delete very soon after.
Bottom-quoting means I often have to add another step - to scroll down
to read the actual message. I don’t understand why many people prefer
that, but they clearly do.

///ark

On May 27, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Bill K. wrote:

My recollection is top-posting was actively discouraged, but overall
relatively rare until the advent of AOL, Netscape, and
SLIP/PPP connections which opened the floodgates, allowing
residential users onto the Internet by the millions. . . .

Actually, my experience was somewhat the opposite. I started on GEnie,
where quoting was rare. Then I came to Usenet and absolutely could not
believe the amount of quoting that went on. It was clearly without any
thought or reason - people just quoted the entire thread in every
single message. You still see that, in this very group.

That’s what really gripes me - the fact that people quote the entire
universe, but it doesn’t matter as long as they put the new stuff at
the bottom, forcing you have to scroll down to read it. What sense is
there in that?

If the self-appointed netiquette police paid as much attention to
excessive quoting as they do to top and bottom posting, the whole
issue would be moot, in my eyes.

///ark

On May 27, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Francis B. wrote:

These guidelines are not commonly accepted.

Maybe not in toto, but the bit about bottom posting is!

That’s just an assertion, Francis, and frankly, it’s formed the basis
of most of the arguments I’ve heard so far, all of which seem to boil
down to “you should do it because the people who say you should do say
you should do it.” There’s been precious little discussion of -why-,
other than to pretend that a newsgroup post is like a conversation.

The frowning upon follow-ups to your own post seems unjustified
too - addenda, corrections and retractions are entirely reasonable.

Agreed. Things have changed since 1995. Just because one person issued
a request for comment 13 years ago does not make careve it carve it in
stone.

///ark

On May 27, 2008, at 1:58 PM, James B. wrote:

But if you are going to post anything at all, consider you audience
and make things easy for the reader.

It’s sort of like how you should write code; easy of reading trumps
ease of writing.

Thanks - that exactly expresses why (in some cases) I think top-
posting is better. I can’t really think of any other basis on which to
argue (except for, “It’s the standard!”, of course).

///ark

On May 27, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Phillip G. wrote:

At the moment, I have more attention diverted to email, since I am
waiting for correspondence. There are weeks, though, where email (and
IM, or any form of communication) is on the back burner, getting
minimal
attention, as it otherwise would distract me. I suspect, I’m not the
only one who works that way.

I participate in a number of groups. If I don’t keep up with them on a
daily basis, I’m going to fall behind pretty quickly. It’s interesting
that you imply that bottom-posting is more attractive to those who
don’t do groups as much as others, though. It makes sense.

Yes, you are implying that. ‘It’s all the same to me’, to paraphrase
your stance.

You’re kidding, right? :slight_smile: I’ve been writing K upon K to say that I
don’t care about this issue?

It’s more than ‘bare assertion’, if those socialized with netiquette
take the ‘top-posting isn’t the best way to use written correspondence
on the web’ ad here to this de facto standard. Of course, it is only
etiquette. However, those that don’t follow etiquette are seen as rude
by those who don’t follow the etiquette.

This is what I meant by “begging the question.” You are using the
“standard” as evidence for why people should follow it. I don’t agree
that it’s the standard, so that evidence doesn’t avail you.

Much like farting during dinner is, in the proverbial polite company,
frowned upon.

More passive voice.

this goes beyond ‘bare assertion’, but constitutes a trend. :wink:
Argument by anecdote.

Also, consider what I said earlier: that the anti-toppers (like you)
could simpler be more vocal than the more “tolerant” people (like me).
In other words, the majority does not necessarily support the loudest
viewpoint.

///ark

You guys have somehow turned this away from the documentation-aspect,
huh? :wink:

On May 27, 2008, at 3:32 PM, James B. wrote:

Well, if you honestly think others will find it easier to read your
posts if you top-post, I don’t know how to argue against it.

I’ve already explained under which circumstances I believe that to be
true. I won’t bore you by repeating it. :slight_smile:

///ark

Mark W. wrote:

(except for, “It’s the standard!”, of course).

Well, if you honestly think others will find it easier to read your
posts if you top-post, I don’t know how to argue against it.


James B.

www.rubyaz.org - Hacking in the Desert
www.risingtidesoftware.com - Wicked Cool Coding
www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

I agree fully with James - this style of replying seems more natural to
me… :wink:

saji

While replying, I try to write whole sentences that are reasonably

From: Robert D. [mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid]
prefer
Please go through the trouble of looking at the common posting scheme
Cheers
Robert


http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/


Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein


Saji N. Hameed

APEC Climate Center +82 51 668 7470
National Pension Corporation Busan Building 12F
Yeonsan 2-dong, Yeonje-gu, BUSAN 611705 removed_email_address@domain.invalid
KOREA

On May 27, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

Personally, I find it much easier to read posts that are written
with emacs, not vi… (just trying to change the subject :wink:

You do not want to get me started on that, trust me. :slight_smile:

///ark

On May 28, 2008, at 5:58, Mark W. wrote:

On May 27, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

Personally, I find it much easier to read posts that are written
with emacs, not vi… (just trying to change the subject :wink:

You do not want to get me started on that, trust me. :slight_smile:

///ark

/* vim: set ts=2 sw=2 sts=2 ai */

I concur.

James B. wrote:

top-posting is better. I can’t really think of any other basis on
which to argue (except for, “It’s the standard!”, of course).

Well, if you honestly think others will find it easier to read your
posts if you top-post, I don’t know how to argue against it.

Personally, I find it much easier to read posts that are written with
emacs, not vi… (just trying to change the subject :wink:

In article removed_email_address@domain.invalid,
Mark W. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

These guidelines are not commonly accepted.

Maybe not in toto, but the bit about bottom posting is!

That’s just an assertion, Francis, and frankly, it’s formed the basis
of most of the arguments I’ve heard so far, all of which seem to boil
down to “you should do it because the people who say you should do say
you should do it.” There’s been precious little discussion of -why-,
other than to pretend that a newsgroup post is like a conversation.

It’s a convention bases on sound (imo) arguments. Why bottom-posting
is a good idea has been discussed in this thread. Maybe it should be
discussed some more. One argument is simply that it is the convention,
and that it helps if everyone follows the convention.

The frowning upon follow-ups to your own post seems unjustified
too - addenda, corrections and retractions are entirely reasonable.

Agreed. Things have changed since 1995. Just because one person issued
a request for comment 13 years ago does not make careve it carve it in
stone.

I’d be interested to hear exactly what has changed since 1995 that
invalidates the original reasoning.

Francis

In article removed_email_address@domain.invalid,
Mark W. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

The way I read email is with the mouse. I’ll click on each subject
line in the list, and then usually click delete very soon after.
Bottom-quoting means I often have to add another step - to scroll down
to read the actual message. I don’t understand why many people prefer
that, but they clearly do.

Ah, ancient technology - explains a lot! :wink:

The way I read news is to keep pressing spacebar, with the occasional
‘n’, ‘,’ and ‘k’ key. One can get through a lot of text very quickly
that way. Plus, too much mousing makes my wrist hurt.

Francis

In article removed_email_address@domain.invalid,
James B. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

I’ve tried that, got poor results, and now take a simple approach: I
try to do as little work as possible, and if someone posts a message I
find hard to read or follow, I will stop reading and move on.

Same here, with some guidance from the display that appears at
the top of my newsreader window that includes a nice tree-like
display that gives clues about the course of the thread (e.g.
whether there are two people arguing, if one post gets a lot of
replies, etc.):

–(1)–(2)–(2)–(2)
–(2)±(2)±(2)–(2)–(2)–(2)
| -(2)–[2]–[2]±[2]
| -[2]+
|
-(2)

() and [] indicate read and unread messages respectively, and
I can navigate around the thread with arrow keys. If it looks
like the subthread is going nowhere, pressing ‘,’ skips it.

If people top-post and still get the results they are seeking (help,
suggestions, whatever), I guess they have found a working strategy, so
why should they stop.

Having both top- and bottom-posting styles is like allowing
cars to drive on both sides of the road. Things can get muddled
very quickly!

But if you are going to post anything at all, consider you audience and
make things easy for the reader.

That’s just commonsense.

It’s sort of like how you should write code; easy of reading trumps ease
of writing.

Not everyone aspires to that ideal. However, they only have
themselves to blame if it comes back to bite them on the bum.

Francis

Dear oh dear oh dear! What a lot of fuss about nothing. :wink:

TMTOWTDI!

Live and let live.