Disqus - Friends of maraby

Re: Recursive Reverse Array in Ruby — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:02:48 -0000

Thanks Matt! I knew about monkey patching, but for some reason didn't consider that it might make this code example simpler ... but you're right that it definitely does.

Re: Recursive Reverse Array in Ruby — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:07:55 -0000

... tell that to ActiveSupport, eh? :) I guess you were at RubyConf so you probably heard it straight from the horse's mouth, but refinements look pretty neat: http://timeless.judofyr.net... http://yehudakatz.com/2010/...

Re: http://wavded.tumblr.com/post/2177595595

Andy Lindeman — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:35:51 -0000

Really enjoyed these. Thanks.

Re: Learn HTML5, JavaScript and CSS With Mozilla’s Free “School of Webcraft”

Andy Lindeman — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:04:38 -0000

I just proposed that very course. Keep your year to the ground in early January :)

Re: The Life of a Radar - Blog of Ryan Bigg

Andy Lindeman — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:25:48 -0000

Good stuff! I've actually decided to host my jekyll-based blog on Github Pages ( http://alindeman.github.com ). Github Pages runs everything through jekyll and automatically regenerates my site when I push to master at https://github.com/alindema... $0 hosting bill and 0 things for me to maintain.

I lose a bit of control, but I don't expect Github to go under any time soon.

More info: http://pages.github.com/

BTW, you're oh so very close to validating as HTML5: http://validator.w3.org/che...

Re: Andy Lindeman — P2PU: Introduction to Ruby and Rails

Andy Lindeman — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:27:55 -0000

If you've had no experience, I recommend you not sign up, right. While we'll start with the basics in Ruby syntax, we will not spend any time on the basics of programming itself. If you haven't programmed before, I think you'll likely get lost :-/

Re: Iterating Through Time With Rails — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:22:43 -0000

Great catch. I updated the post with a possible solution, albeit one that doesn't look nearly as nice. Thoughts?

Re: Iterating Through Time With Rails — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:49:59 -0000

Well, there are a couple problems with that:

1) Doesn't work in Ruby 1.9
2) In Ruby 1.8, calls Time#succ 86400 times between steps (as a Time instance is not a number). Terribly inefficient :(

I posted more about that here: http://alindeman.github.com...

Re: Beware of Ruby Syntactic Sugar — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:34:45 -0000

Touche, in this case, I like that better. How might you approach it if you wanted to step by a different unit than in the range? Say, from now until 5 days from now, step by hour.

Re: Beware of Ruby Syntactic Sugar — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:36:36 -0000

In general, though, the post is about not assuming that a high level language like Ruby will do what you think it will all the time. In some cases, this can cause really bad inefficiencies.

Re: Episode #144: Iterating Through Time With Rails

Andy Lindeman — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:36:36 -0000

I think it'd be best to link to the follow up post: http://alindeman.github.com... :-)

Re: Episode #145: Snowpocalypse

Andy Lindeman — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:39:08 -0000

Happy Birthday :D

Re: Blog of Ryan Bigg - RTFM

Andy Lindeman — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:30:27 -0000

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Re: Beware of Ruby Syntactic Sugar — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:16:43 -0000

`1.day` creates an `ActiveSupport::Duration` instance, which proxies most methods to the underlying `Fixnum`. While `to_i` does seem to coax it into being a "real" `Fixnum`, `Range#step` still seems to use `#succ`. The issue is more with the `Range` start and end points not being Numerics than with the step argument.

I didn't spend as much time as I should have tweaking this post. In general, I just wanted to point out that some decent looking code can be really terrible for performance because of a nuance in how a 'black box' method operates on certain objects.

In this specific case, as argued by another commenter, it seems like `Range#step` should simply check for the existence of the `+` operator (duck typing), rather than checking for whether the arguments are specifically `Numeric` instances.

Re: Remote Pair Programming — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:12:56 -0000

Sounds great: I would love to! Shoot me an email (linked in the last sentence of the post).

Re: http://pom5.tumblr.com/post/4443648476

Andy Lindeman — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:53:34 -0000

EXCELLENT

Re: http://pom5.tumblr.com/post/4581626474

Andy Lindeman — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:59:31 -0000

lol, the girls look pretty indifferent

Re: Optimistic Locking with MongoDB

Andy Lindeman — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:54:13 -0000

Interesting! Does this method deal with the ABA problem/nuance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... )?

That is, will you get an error if a document is modified, but changed back to its original values before another process saves it? What about if a field is added that was not in the document when you first loaded it (MongoDB is schemaless)?

Also, how does it bench sending every field as a search query compared to mm-optimistic_locking which uses a simple counter?

Re: Optimistic Locking with MongoDB

Andy Lindeman — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:38:31 -0000

Nice! That's a great pro/con analysis.

Re: Map People

Andy Lindeman — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:11:45 -0000

These are so neat! I will happily hang them if/when a frame happens :)

Re: What's The First Release That Contains This Commit? — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:33:21 -0000

Very nice!

Re: First World Problems

Andy Lindeman — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:09:38 -0000

:) I like how your blog is helping you reflect on life in general. And, yes, while I would enjoy anything you cook because of the "made with love" aspect, I like that you're passionate about it anyway.

It's definitely tough to keep everything in perspective, though.

Re: First World Problems

Andy Lindeman — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:13:05 -0000

Hahahahaha

Re: Testing Devise with RSpec Request Specs and Capybara — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:54:00 -0000

These are great points. It likely makes sense to write a follow-on post with more best practices (or even just "some practices to think about" like your /blog/posts?username=foo example) as opposed to just a quickstart like I was intending here.

Thanks Justin.

Re: Callbacks and Background Jobs — Andy Lindeman

Andy Lindeman — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:18:02 -0000

Great point about `destroyed?`. I missed this in the article and will update: thanks.