please suggest me the good editor for ruby.
Dilip Bv wrote:
please suggest me the good editor for ruby.
Vi!
No, Emacs!
No, TextMate!
No, Eclipse!
Actually, please search the mailing list archives; this is a well
covered topic.
James B. (vim user)
Dilip Bv wrote:
please suggest me the good editor for ruby.
This is like asking a group of strangers to tell you what kind of woman
to
marry. What could be more personal and idiosyncratic than choosing a
programming editor?
There are many good ones, and you haven’t told us which platform you are
on.
Paul L. wrote:
This is like asking a group of strangers to tell you what kind of woman to
marry. What could be more personal and idiosyncratic than choosing a
programming editor?There are many good ones, and you haven’t told us which platform you are on.
I read that last sentence as:
“There are many types of people, and you haven’t told us whether you’re
into blondes, brunettes, or redheads.”
Devin
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 03:55:52PM +0900, Devin M. wrote:
} Paul L. wrote:
} >This is like asking a group of strangers to tell you what kind of
woman to
} >marry. What could be more personal and idiosyncratic than choosing a
} >programming editor?
} >
} >There are many good ones, and you haven’t told us which platform you
are
} >on.
} I read that last sentence as:
} “There are many types of people, and you haven’t told us whether
you’re
} into blondes, brunettes, or redheads.”
Silly analogy time!
Windows => brunette (most common, nothing special)
Linux => blonde (more fun, and brunettes often bleach to blonde)
MacOS X => redhead (sexy!)
} Devin
–Greg
On Jul 24, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Chad P. wrote:
along the lines of `if I can’t kick it, it has no value and
government control?
circumstances is required to give those bits themselves scarcity
enhance theconstructs period.
require much of a service sector to them. You simply offer an
additional copying and distribution, only betrays a lack ofsoftware industry is undeniable: copyright law is inserted into the
software
is the same". That strikes me as a complete non-sequitur.–
CCD CopyWrite Chad P. [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
W. Somerset Maugham: “The ability to quote is a serviceable
substitute for
wit.”
Seriously, this should go off list or something soon. It’s turned
into a SlashDot thread almost.
I’m not denying you the term ‘artificial scarcity’
what I see is that markets are not necessarily about scarcity.
If we have a thousand lemons, one person who wants one lemon and you
offer them for free and I sell it with a contract that says I
guarantee or not this and that blah blah, and the person decides to
buy mine, then it is entirely a freedom of choice on the consumer.
Nobody is forced to purchase anything as there is no lemon monopoly.
The consumer simply decides they want the one that they have to pay
for. For whatever reasons they decide they want that one.
Open source comes with no more guarantees of support or viability or
longevity than closed source. Consumers have a choice. Individuals or
organizations. They make choices. You make a choice in your
licensing, but don’t force your license on others. If one company
sells a packaged linux distro and another gives it away and people
choose one or the other, that is where freedom is!
On Jul 24, 2007, at 5:04 AM, Brad P. wrote:
‘governmentally enforced artificial scarcity model where software
is treated as physical product units.’What does this mean other than that software has no inherent
monetary sale value other than that artificially imposed
by government control?
Which is exactly the kind of half logic that would debunk all
‘governmentally enforced’ rights, property or otherwise.
They’re all artifices imposed by social constructs. Some of them work
and some don’t. If they don’t work, they’re ideally changed/fixed.
But the ideal Star Trek world of no money and free and equal access
to everything is not going to happen any time soon.
In fact, copyright and physical property
rights are specifically in legally enforceable conflict with one
another.
Try posting torrents of the latest Hollywood schmalz on your server.
When hauled into court try arguing that But your honor copyright and
physical property rights are specifically in legally enforceable
conflict with one another and see how far you get.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:03:15PM +0900, John J. wrote:
thinking abstractly enough to know where you got that.
They’re all artifices imposed by social constructs. Some of them work
and some don’t. If they don’t work, they’re ideally changed/fixed.
But the ideal Star Trek world of no money and free and equal access
to everything is not going to happen any time soon.
Nonsense.
-
It’s not “half-logic” – it’s a factual description of the economic
realities of the situation. -
It has no ability to debunk any (other) rights, especially
(physical) property rights. In fact, copyright and physical property
rights are specifically in legally enforceable conflict with one
another, as a prohibition against arranging pixels on a piece of paper
and distributing that piece of paper just because the arranged pixels
violate copyright with regards to the image produced conflicts with
the
proprietary rights of the owner of the ink, paper, and printer
involved
(for example). -
Rights are not “imposed” – they are either protected or violated
by
“social constructs” (I assume you mostly allude to government with
that
phrase). -
Free and equal access to everything? Nobody in this discussion
said, or even implied, anything of the sort as far as I’m aware.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 06:55:10AM +0900, Brad P. wrote:
conflict with one another* and see how far you get.
commonly overridden by law’s associated with fraud, murder, drug
dealing, civil infractions, family breakups, national interest, traffic
violations and more. Observing these points shows the law rarely
considers any particular ‘right’ inviolate. I would tentatively suggest
that even the word ‘rights’ is a loaded term that should be generally
avoided as it suggests absolutism whereas reality is more complex.
My take is the opposite – that cases where law contradicts rights are
violations, and the law should be changed. I don’t take legal violation
of rights to be a hint that rights aren’t all that important.
Cost of switching your text editor is much less than cost of
switching, say, your webapp infrastructure (some my argue), so
concerns about longevity should be viewed in appropriate context.I would reverse those by a huge margin. I’ve been using my current text editor
since a few years before there was a web, let alone a web application, let alone
a web application infrastructure.
It just says that you have been using your text editor for a really
long time, not a cost
of switching it
Chad P. wrote:
Exactly my point – your physical property rights are contradicted by
copyright law.
I will agree with you with a small change.
your physical property rights are overidden by copyright law
But this is not unique to copyright law. Physical property rights are
commonly overridden by law’s associated with fraud, murder, drug
dealing, civil infractions, family breakups, national interest, traffic
violations and more. Observing these points shows the law rarely
considers any particular ‘right’ inviolate. I would tentatively suggest
that even the word ‘rights’ is a loaded term that should be generally
avoided as it suggests absolutism whereas reality is more complex.
Respectfully
B
In message
[email protected], “Rimantas
Liubertas”
writes:
Cost of switching your text editor is much less than cost of
switching, say, your webapp infrastructure (some my argue), so
concerns about longevity should be viewed in appropriate context.
I would reverse those by a huge margin. I’ve been using my current text
editor
since a few years before there was a web, let alone a web application,
let alone
a web application infrastructure.
-s
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:15:04PM +0900, Brad P. wrote:
physical property rights are specifically in legally enforceable
conflict with one another* and see how far you get.
Exactly my point – your physical property rights are contradicted by
copyright law.
Chad P. wrote:
I don’t recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Maybe I’m
‘governmentally enforced’ rights, property or otherwise.
is a measure of value, in that it is the symbolic representation of
work, hopefully with some kind of efficiencies built in that enhance the
value of that work.The reason the software-as-units business model relies on artificial
scarcity is that it’s trying to derive market value from a non-scarce
part of the chain of creation, distribution, and use. Ultimately, in its
natural form, a software market would be a service industry rather than a
product manufacturing industry.
That’s pretty much my thinking.
Of course, I think I may be violently agreeing with you, to some extent.
You’re probably using “software” in this case to refer to “copies of
software”, as a form of shorthand. The copies themselves have no
intrinsic value (though the media on which they’re copied have at least
some such value).
Precisely - I should have been a little clearer
With that, I’m ducking out of this thread. We’re way OT, and I don’t
think there’s much more I can add to what’s gone before.
My I add a different idea?
Does this still belong on the list?
I mean it is for sure interesting and somehow related to Ruby but in
my humble opinion everybody has mad her point and I feel that it would
be mighty nice to respect the list and potentially take it Off List.
Just an idea.
Robert
–
We’re on a mission from God. ~ Elwood,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:21:45AM +0900, Alex Y. wrote:
just not thinking abstractly enough to know where you got that.
‘governmentally enforced’ rights, property or otherwise.
I wouldn’t call it “half logic”. If you accept that value is derived
from scarcity, and that bits can be copied arbitrarily easily (and are
therefore by definition non-scarce and have no intrinsic value), then
a government-enforced moratorium on copying bits under certain
circumstances is required to give those bits themselves scarcity and
therefore value. Unless you have a different model for defining
intrinsic value, the logic is pretty solid…
Actually . . . software has value. Something doesn’t have to have
physical scarcity to have value. In fact, one might say that software
is a measure of value, in that it is the symbolic representation of
work, hopefully with some kind of efficiencies built in that enhance the
value of that work.
The reason the software-as-units business model relies on artificial
scarcity is that it’s trying to derive market value from a non-scarce
part of the chain of creation, distribution, and use. Ultimately, in
its
natural form, a software market would be a service industry rather than
a
product manufacturing industry.
Of course, I think I may be violently agreeing with you, to some extent.
You’re probably using “software” in this case to refer to “copies of
software”, as a form of shorthand. The copies themselves have no
intrinsic value (though the media on which they’re copied have at least
some such value).
<…>
and
with the fact that some people who appear to like TextMate too umbrage at
the suggestion that (for the people who prefer open source software, at
least) closed source software suffers some limitations in terms of its
probable longevity.
<…>
I can use real benefits Textmate provides for me now, and frankly, I
don’t care about
any probable problems in the future. If TM gets discontinued - fine.
I still have my
copy, or I can choose from myriads of other editors, free or non-free,
open, closed,
dug-under-the-tree source, whatever.
I am pretty sure I will die one day, should that be the reason not to
use benefits of living today?
Cost of switching your text editor is much less than cost of
switching, say, your webapp infrastructure (some my argue), so
concerns about longevity should be viewed in appropriate context.
Chad P. wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:49:59PM +0900, Brad P. wrote:
However it always stuns me when software geeks come with arguments as
previously posted because we are meant to be abstract thinkers. However
I keep hearing the same old argument along the lines ofif I can't kick it, it has no value and should be free.I don’t recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Maybe I’m just not
thinking abstractly enough to know where you got that.
‘governmentally enforced artificial scarcity model where software is
treated as physical product units.’
What does this mean other than that software has no inherent
monetary sale value other than that artificially imposed
by government control?