If you're like me, you love to code because it is a creative process.
In another life, I am a musician. I've always loved music because it represents a synthesis of the concreteness of math and the ambiguity of language. Programming is the same way.
But despite the creative potential of programming, I often find myself spending days working out the kinks of HTTP requests or dealing with SSL certificates. Some part of me yearns for a purely Apollonion environment in which to use code to make something new and unseen.
When I feel a void for purely creative coding, I turn to the Processing language.
One of the biggest challenges of object oriented programming in Ruby is defining the interface of your objects. In other languages, such as Java, there is an explicit way to define an interface that you must conform to. But in Ruby, it's up to you.
Compounding this difficulty is the problem of deciding which object should own a method that you want to write. Trying to choose between modules, class methods, instance methods, structs, and lambdas can be overwhelming.
In this post, we'll look at several ways to solve the Exercism Leap Year problem, exploring different levels of method visiblitiy and scope level along the way.
There's something magical about the way that Ruby just flows from your fingertips. why said "Ruby will teach you to express your ideas through a computer". Maybe that's why Ruby has become such a popular choice for modern web development.
Just as in English, there are lots of ways to say the same thing in Ruby. I spend a lot of time reading and nitpicking people's code on exercism.io, and I often see exercises solved in a way that could be greatly simplified if the author had only known about a certain Ruby method. Here's a look at some lesser-used methods solve a specific problem very well.
A feature for an internal Ruby project here at Quick Left necessitated parsing the domain from a URL. This seems like a problem for which there must already exist a solution, but it surprisingly turns out that there is no available solution for this seemingly simple task.
The other day at our company standup, I mentioned that I was eager to
read an article on Concurrency in Minitest
that was featured in Ruby Weekly. One of my
coworkers asked: "people still use Minitest?" My reply: "you mean you're not using Minitest yet?"
I love Minitest. It's small, lightweight, and ships with Ruby. It's used by respected programmers like Aaron Patterson, Katrina Owen, Sandi Metz, and of course, DHH. Here's a look at why Minitest remains a powerful and popular choice for testing Ruby code.