Ruby: Somehow I overlooked this Gem of a Language

About 5 years ago I started looking into a language that prior to it's "Rails" fame, was lesser known and even lesser utilised.  I tried it a bit and found it leaving me wanting more.  I've kept tabs on it over the years, reading the tutorials and writing several quasi-AI experimental applications for my SimulaE research, but I ended up being enticed by Python, a language which I stand by, including the wonderful (but until recently unused by me) framework Django (Python's Rail's equivalent, focused on Publishing).   

I've programmed professionally using Python for several contracts/years now and find it quite enjoyable.  In fact, I'm currently coding specifically in Python for Inkedmagonline.com, but that doesn't mean that I don't continue my personal exploration and education for both personal and professional reasons.  I decided to re-experience Ruby by picking up the hallowed PickAxe book and giving it another honest chance.  I'm glad I did.  

I believe that Python, and the values espoused in Tim Peter's "De Zen van Python" (The Zen of Python) (my copy just happens to be in Dutch, otherwise I'd post it for others) have helped me to look at Ruby in a different light.  There are some key differences in the two languages, but I can see now the inherent power in Ruby that I was overlooking before.  In fact, some of those key pieces, syntactically as they were which make Ruby so enticing this time around are the very same 'features' I feel are missing in Python.  It only took me working in an environment with situations where said language features would prove the best solution to the problem(s) on hand for me to realise it.

I am not going to spend time detailing all of the specifics, though I may mention one or two nonetheless.  I'm more so bringing this point up so that others might be reminded that giving something new a single chance might be to your own disadvantage.  After all, I didn't like Python the first time I tried it either.  I think it is partially a matter of how we grow as developers that allow us to know what we're missing, that same spark of realisation that gives us the "a ha" of relief when we find it hiding in a new language, programming methodology, etc.  

What brought me back to looking into Ruby a second time is of all things, Smalltalk.  The whole "everything is an object" concept is nothing new to me, or to programming languages.  However in dynamic strongly typed languages, it is.  More importantly is manner of how even rudimentary objects such as integers, floats and strings are treated in Ruby.  They have methods which can be both called using the standard instance.methodname call format, and have their standard methods overridden.  The second being something far more wonky and kludgy in Python (and a non-option in perl).  

The fact that key methods are instance based such as "len" or "length" for example makes a world of difference for consistency.  It speaks to the overall design that "Matz" (Yukihiro Matsumoto creator of Ruby) had in mind during the planning phase.  In Python, a language in which everything is truly an object as well, this starts to get rather confusing.  While Python does treat every integer and string as an object, it mixes the traditional functional paradigm for calling items such as 'len' so that to find the value of 'a', one would type len(a), as opposed to the more object based a.len ..  This seems counter-intuitive and quite frankly a real surprise when you look at the overall design of Python.

I'm not ripping on Python as I do wholeheartedly enjoy the language, I'm just starting to feel aches and pains over decisions which are ingrained into the language, as well as not being seen as an issue or being addressed in py3k (or Python 3000/Python v3.0) as it were.  I just think that my eyes have been opened to Ruby again and I like what I'm seeing.  I am actively looking to find a future professionally as it were utilising it as nothing beats having fun while accomplishing what one would hope accounts to 'great' things.  We'll see what the future holds.

Next Step:  Migrate my SimulaE virtual world/real model object simulation from Python into Ruby as a test run.  Lather, rinse, repeat and then see what the side-by-side comparison's look like.

Until next time...

Arc: An evolution of Lisp/Scheme, or a outdated implementation at launch.

So the day has finally come in which prolific geek & insightful essayist Paul Graham along with Robert Morris released Arc, their evolutionary love child of Lisp & Scheme.  I think it is safe to say that many of us have (and will continue to) read Paul's wonderful essays on a multitude of geek and coder centric topics, and generally with much joy and agreement.   Many of us have been following the work that Graham and Morris have been undertaking with the new baby "Arc". 

Now that this day has arrived, we can see that it wasn't as deserving of all the pomp and circumstance to which we were planning for it to be attributed.  Seems that there are a considerable amount of deficiencies and intentional short comings to the language.  Normally this wouldn't be seen as anything out of the ordinary for a 'new' language, and would be generally a non-issue.  

The problem is that this is the year 2008 and people have come to expect more from their languages.  Ignoring established standards along with ignoring the need for designing to meet the needs of developers globally all the while using the cop-out of it being purely for exploratory programming is just bad form.   

The world doesn't need another Lisp, the original is wonderful just as it is, that's part of its beauty.  I don't see anything in Arc that couldn't be done as functions and/or macros in Lisp that required the entire 'creation' of a new language.  The way I see it is this; for prototyping as well as production usage we already have several languages that excel in those domains, specifically Lisp and Python.  

Generally the idea of rewriting existing languages with little difference from their predecessor(s) is a waste of time and effort which could've been better spent elsewhere.   There are exceptions to this scenario such as that of Ruby.  It is a language that in the past I used to dislike because of certain key flexibilities much akin to the reasons for spaghetti perl, but it successfully fixes many of perl's wrongs, and corrects some of Pythons short comings as well.  It serves serves enough of a purpose as that of supplanting perl with a better thought out design, and thanks to Rails, its future looks solid.  

Arc on the other hand is like a still born fetus.  Much was expected and there was potential to be just like its parent(s), but death was announced during a delayed delivery and upon further examination, it was discovered that it wasn't a proper offspring, but a clone in fetal form.  My advice to Paul and Robert is the following:  recall the release, and make it truly something worthy of release, with proper compatibility and compliance with modern norms.  Make it usable to others as opposed to just a few tinkerers interested more in lisp and scheme basics. 

An on a more pleasant note to Paul;  Please keep on writing your essays and providing your viewpoints as they are appreciated, I just wish that your judgement call in the case of 'Arc' was as well thought out as your writings have proven to be over time.

The New Django Powered Inked Magazine Website is Up!

This will be rather brief as it is more of an announcement than one of my more traditional journal entries. 

After a  short two or so months from start to finish, I have successfully setup my first Django powered website.  Inked Magazine has been relaunched effective January 2nd, 2008.  This replaces the Joomla powered site which existed prior to both myself and the current ownership of the magazine were involved in the project.  

Phase one has been completed, with extras.  The customer photo galleries, the cover photo application, the user profile system as well as the main magazine feature areas have been established and are active.  As of today, I will have available for all registered users the ability to host a blog on our site (using our software which I wrote in a few days), mind you it is still early in the feature process, though it without doubt serves most blog authors needs.  

I will be adding features as time progresses, but until mid-January 2008, I'm on a tight schedule to build the entire forum application so that the beginning of the "New and Improved" Inked Network can go live.  

I don't think one needs Ruby on Rails when you have Django.  Much of the same great functionality and without having to use Ruby all the while using Python.  [Update: After having revisited Ruby as a language on its own, sans Rails notoriety, I've found that my previous assertions regarding Rails specifically was unwarranted.  It simply took my experiences with Django and Python to make Ruby and Rails far clearer to me.]

I will return to my normal posting after the Forum application is up and running.  

Till then, keep on coding.

Django and Gant Charts

It has now been almost a full week since I started the complete inkedmag.com site and infrastructure redesign in Python using the Django web publishing framework on FreeBSD, and I am happy to report that it is awesome.   Mind you we're talking version .96 of the product, yet it truly is a dream with which to work.

I only recently started working with (and writing about) Cheetah, a wonderful python template engine, and had to very quickly learn yet another (Django's own template system).  I must admit that Cheetah is easier to ready and learn quickly, but Django's system is considerably more agile in terms of conditionals and modifiers inside the template itself.  There even happens to be a simple mechanism for cycling through a list continually changing on each iteration of the loop within which the cycle conditional resides.  Simply put, it is wonderful for automatically changing the background colour of a row in a list.  

For those unfamiliar with Django, it is simply one of the better web frameworks for content publishing on the web these days.  While learning curve can be a little steep for some pieces of the framework, as a whole the speed at which once can produce working pages and applications is staggering.  The ease and elegance of the system truly makes one enjoying creating new applications within the framework.  

The first application I chose to migrate from native python into the framework was a simple store locator.  The new version not only is considerably less lines of code, the database management was done for me at application creation/initialisation.  I then simply exported the data from my existing application and imported it into the new table(s) Django created.  

I could go on waxing poetic about every little bell and whistle, but I'd just be paraphrasing what many others have already pointed out online and otherwise.  Don't think of it as Ruby on Rails because it isn't, though that isn't to be taken as an insult to Ruby.  It is much more focused, cleaner and far simpler to setup and get running, including all of its own admin interfaces for the applications you create, as well as its own standalone development web server.  Check it out, you won't be disappointed.  This is going to save me a considerable amount of time.

Which brings me to my second point; Gant charts.  They are simply not something I find myself utilising on any regular basis, though I think that is going to change.  I'm my own boss and have found that gant charts produce the easiest visual way to show people the various pieces necessary for a project, when each portion can be expected to start and finish, all in parallel with the other projects for which I'm responsible (and/or coordinating).  

I feel that the use of this tool more than others really gives a great method by which to see which projects will take the bulk of the time, and what projects overlap, etc.  We have a system rewrite to produce and a whole server to replace, not to mention migrating certain custom software into the framework all before the new year.  This is doable, but only because we've clearly set realistic (though tight nonetheless) goals and time frames.    Consider using a gant chart if you have more than one project or component of a project which needs to be done in a given time frame.  Use one if you need to share with one or more people your schedule and need them to understand as quickly and clearly as possible that with which you are juggling or dealing.  You find yourself quickly addicted to its usability.

Building a Better Box for a Client

As was mentioned in a previous entry, I stated that I was willing to try being an independent contractor again sometime.  That time is now.  As such, my new corporate overlords are a media publishing group and I’ve been called in to do a ground up architecture and engineering job, along with continued long term maintenance.  Unlike before this situation appeals to me because it lacks on of the most common issues in the realm of development in general, legacy upkeep.  Sure, there is the little issue pertaining to a php application which needs to be put on a website short term, but after that we’ll be trying to limit php to specific applications on a limited (only as-needed) basis.

Ultimately we’re looking at starting with a fresh new remote server and that being said, my own experience brings me down to a quasi LAMP setup.  Traditionally I’ve found that when I want a rock solid remote host, one which I know can go years on end in a reliable manner,  I chose FreeBSD.  Nothing against Linux other than I find it fine for a Desktop or a Server, but more so the desktop than the server.  I find that there still is no substitue for Apache when it comes to matters related in pushing out pages to the web.  

Next is a point of contention, the database.  I’ve been using MySQL since version 3.23.24a (or something around that revision number), and have found that it met my needs about half of the time.  Much of it (at the time) revolved around the issues pertaining to MySQL’s myisam faults and weaknesses regarding concurrence in high insert/update environments.   I know some people out there (many actually) will start arguing this point right away, and I still say unto you that this is a known weakness.  The myisam database storage engine is designed for speed, not high-concurrecy, nor transaction safety.  When paird with the InnoDB engine, and the removal of the auto-commit flag (as it negates the whole point of using a transaction safe engine), most of those issues disappear.  The other issues pertain to foreign keys, store procedures, etc., which have been slowly addressed in versions since the 3.xx base.  Now we’re at the 5.xx family and much has improved.  

However, all of these points still cause MySQL to pale in comparison compared to PostgreSQL.  True, MySQL has proven to be very capable and very popular, especially among the Linux crowd and cheap hosting crowd.  I will be installing MySQL on the new machine to handle support of third party web applications, though when it comes to hosting any important data, there can be only one choice, and it isn’t MySQL.  PostgreSQL is the clear winner here, the closest db engine we have to Oracle without being Oracle.  

Finally, we approach the last letter in our acronym.  The ‘P’, which can stand for a multitude of langauges scripting, web and otherwise.  We have PHP which is wonderful for quick and simple (an a handful of not so quick and simple) web based applications.  It is an easy language for the novice to learn, and in the hands of an expert, even more so capable, though it has its faults, and among those security being the top.  Much effort has been made (especially post 4.2.3 and 5.x versions/trees, and I hope to see this evolution continue, though I still don’t see myself using it much as I don’t feel compelled by the language as a whole.  

Next we move to another ‘P’, which in actuality is a ‘p’, perl.  The oldest of the languages we’re discussing here, but not by that much of a time frame.  Perl grew out of the personal needs of a C programmer, Larry Wall as a combination replacement of both sed and awk (amongst other Unix utilities).  I’ve been paid to code in Perl for the better part of the past 11 or so years, and I can say after all of that time several things.  On the good side, perl is found everywhere, has a large code base, and is fast.   On the bad side, I’ll have to limit my dislikes and faults found within perl so that this entry doesn’t go on for thousands of words.  Limiting my issues with perl we will see that it allows, almost seduces people into writing ugly, cryptic code.  Yes, yes, yes, the code some perl monks/mongers write may be very crafty.  Crafty does not equate with great, let alone good quality.  

All too often we see people referring to the TIMTOWDI (There Is More Than One Way to Do It) mindset of perl as being a benefit, though I see it (time and time against, countless of codebases later, even the CPAN library) as being a flaw and weakness.  If you don’t enforce a certain level of clean design into the language itself, you end up with a mess, or as many others have stated, a write-only language, one which even the author(s) of programs cannot read/decipher down the line.  My suggestion is for perl coders to follow Java coding guidelines.  I mean, we’re talking about a language that doesn’t has several decent levels of rules and coding enforcement (such as the ‘use strict’ pragma), but is so foolish as to allow people to code in a manner contrary to that pragma when it already exists in the core language.  How about a proper exception handling system?  Eval blocks or non-core/second-class libraries do not make a proper first class handling system.  This is asinine in a language that has been around for over 20 years as of this writing.  I could go on, but I’d rather not.

This brings us to a non-p ‘P’ in LAMP, Ruby.  Ruby to me is an evolution of perl in many regards, especially its object based design and proper exception handling system, however it still fails miserably in the sense of massive overuse of tokens and pascal-esque verbatim block terminators.  Rails has made Ruby a mainstream language, and I do feel that it has considerable potential ever more so than Rails alone, but it still has a ways to go when it comes to speed and cleanliness.  Matz has be working hard on it, and I’d like to think there are great things ahead for the language from the land of the rising sun, but at the current moment, I still find it lacking as non-web specific development platform.

Finally we come to where I’m heading, and I’m sure others have already figured that one out.  Python rounds out the last ‘P’ in the equation.  Python is almost as old as Perl, and is rooted in development languages as opposed to the shell and various utilities.  In this language we see a very capable, 100% object-based development language which is capable of handling coding projects of any size which espouses clean design, human readability, code re-use, distributable byte-code compiled classes/applications and proper exception handling as a first class citizen.  

So as we can see where, the solution i find most reliable and long-term maintainable with minimal development time, maximum return for design/coding efforts, security and platform flexibility is simple.  So it isn’t technically a “LAMP” solutions, more as it is a BAMPP solution encompassing BSD for the OS, Apache for the web serving, MySQL and PostgreSQL for the database(s), and Python for application development.  

I came to the above choices after years of experimenting and experiencing and I do suggest others experiment on their own if they have that luxury/time frame available to them, but I do offer the above as a recommendation as I would (and have, and will) bet my own future livelihood on the flexibility and reliability of the aforementioned combination of technologies.  

Write Source Code for Other Developers, Not the Computer.

I’m not sure as to whom to attribute the following statistic, but i believe it was something along the lines of this;  Code is read vs. written on at a 10:1 ratio, meaning that the is far more reviewing of any specific codebase than there is writing to said code.  Furthermore, the majority of software positions involve maintaining and modifying existing code as opposed to creation of new code from the ground up.

To what does all of this allude?  The importance of writing clean code.  Knowing full well that other developers are going to have to read, understand and most likely modify your code in question at some point(s) in the future.  This is where our responsibility as software professionals (even in the case of hobbyists) comes into play.  

Several languages have tried to address this problem by intrinsic design decisions.  Most notably among those in recent times are Java and Python.  Java does so by its explicitness by design, and Python by its forced formatted a la the whitespace requirement.  Both are effective in what they do, however there are still a multitude of ways in which both can be written in a harder to read format.  Obviously choice of variable, function, class and object reference names is a very large point of readability (or not) which really cannot be enforced by a language specification.  Let us take a look at this very issue and while we’re at it, i’ll be clear that this is not a Python vs. Java issue discussion.

All too easily so many coders (I know this from having had to look at, understanding and refactor their code) overlook one of the best sources for building readable code, and that is their naming convention.  There have been several best practices and coding style specifications documents produced that one might think me as flogging a dead horse, but I assure you this is not the case.  

In the following examples we see a variation of languages and how we might commonly see the same variable name referenced (and initialised as it were):

Smalltalk:

num_of_doors = 4 ;

Python:

numberOfDoors = 4    OR    numDoors = 4    OR    number_of_doors = 4

Ruby:

numberOfDoors = 4;    OR    numDoors = 4;    OR    number_of_doors = 4;

Java, C#:

int numberOfDoors = 4;    OR    int numDoors = 4;    OR    int number_of_doors = 4;

Lisp:

number-of-doors := 4;

C, C++:

int intNumDrs = 4;    OR    int num_drs = 4;    OR    int int_drs = 4;

Perl:

my $vzoiuwriozufsd = 0x04;

The point here is that there are many varied ways in which the same variable can be referenced.  I am of the opinion that much along the lines of Guido van Rossum of Python (and to a lesser extent ABC) fame, that there really should be one and only one obvious way to do it.  This isn’t to say that I think everyone should code in the same language, and speak the same tongue, etc.  What it does mean though, is that to be understood by others (and sometimes by ourselves), we need consistency, and unless we have a set of strict guidelines set out for us as software engineers, developers, etc., we might as well code in our own made up dialects.  

I am of the opinion that a proper interpreter, compiler, virtual machine, etc., should be more than capable of quickly turning long variable, class, function and method names into concise tokens with small internal footprints.  So much to the point that there is no excuse for not being verbose.  At one point in time, every single byte of allocated memory for names of the aforementioned items was a crucial issue which required extreme concise naming conventions to be followed.  Those times are gone in this day and age, allowing us to be clearer and more expressive.  

I can see using single letter counter variable names, but never could I imagine naming a class, method or function in such a sparse manner.  I like to think that clean code reads somewhat like a choose your own adventure book, were it to have a greater variety of options available.  Functional or Object Oriented is immaterial here, as cleanly written code isn’t tied to a specific construct or paradigm.  I think most of the following rules are applicable to pretty much every language out there.  Emphasis below pertains to items that I feel are not language specific guidelines.

As can be seen, most of the above are applicable to languages other than Python.  I find myself at my current place of employment having to deal with the problems for which this list addresses.  Much of what I’m doing is updating a legacy code base that is literally plagued with dozens of individual programs and modules that are blatant attacks on decent code.  They (collectively) single-handedly break most of the above guidelines.  

First off it is almost entirely written in perl, which instantly shoots down the Readability counts factor (and no, it wasn’t done with the strict pragma, and yes it uses a bunch of requires and plenty of global variables).  

Secondly, errors don’t pass silently because there is no built-in exception handling in perl.  Evals of code blocks does not equate to a proper exception system, nor does an add-in module.  Exceptions are something which need to be a core part of the design of the language, and perl falls far short of the bottom of the heap on this issue alone.  

Thirdly, when one is expected to maintain code in an environment wherein the expectation is to follow the existing coding schema as it were, with global variables, no exception handling, etc., it truly becomes a daunting task because one must force his/herself to think ‘wrong’.  The logical and/or proper solution that is naturally though of as a solution would only lead to reprimand, simply because trying to think in such a manner will produce mistakes, primarily because trained seasoned professionals don’t think in the same manner as the less experienced coder(s) responsible for the legacy code int eh first place.

Finally, (I’ll leave it to three to be nice to those few perl hackers who’ve read this far), after ten plus years of coding in perl, I’ve come to learn that the TIMTOWDI (There Is More Than One Way to Do It) mantra of perl is one of the biggest problems that arise from the language.  It is this careless and dare I say reckless mindset which has led to so many atrocities in the professional coding world.  

My point is simple enough to follow.  Write readable code, as it is a defining factor as to how far you’ve matured in the field of software development.  It doesn’t necessarily mean you are even that good at what you do, but what it does do is show how you understand a rudimentary problem that so many others have failed to realise.  Readability Counts, and without it, we are truly lost.  

It’s been a while... I’ve been busy coding away. Here’s an update.

    I’ve been rather busy recently now that our beta version of software where I am employed has made its way to production.  Since that has transpired, all of our Trac entries can be attacked in a more systematic manner.  Here’s a little rundown of what I’ve been doing.

    Handling my son’s integration into his newest school year endeavour, as well as my wife’s into hers.  She just completed her masters degree and is starting her second year (first full year) as a teacher of Biology..  to kids born the year that she and I graduated (together) from high school.

    Creating the backlog of CodeDevl.com podcasts, and editing.  I never realised exactly how much time it takes to edit a podcast recording.  For every five minutes spoken, there are ten minutes spent editing and cleaning up.

    Learning and implementing GIT version control/repository software at our place of employ, as well as my local network as a replacement for Subversion (SVN).  

    Wrote a python (base classes pure) application which handles all migration of beta software to both the GIT repository paths as well as handling moves to production (including automated changes to certain header includes).  I’m rather happy with this application as it has saved many issue from transpiring.  Due to the haphazard manner in which some of the code base is arranged (particularly the beta vs. live paths), problems can and have occurred, hence my reasons for taking the initiative to create said program.  

    Additional work with re-learning Java, and keeping current with other technologies (Python 3K/3000/3.0), Javascript, Ruby, Smalltalk concepts and to a lesser degree Lisp (not including additional emacs functionalities).

    I do promise that I will be continuing to update both this written journal as well as the podcast site, and just wanted to let those reading that I have not dropped off the face of the earth, just immersed myself back into the changing flow at my workplace. 

Simple Rapid Application Development in Python

I've always found it interesting reading about coding paradigms and what not, including ways in which a coder can increase his/her throughput. Meaning, how can I quickly pump out software that is easily portable, eloquently written, and easily maintainable by either myself and/or someone else one, two, six, eighteen months down the road? 

I've found out the answer to that question, in the form of a language, and it isn't Perl, Java, or Ruby. Simply put, it is Python by Guido van Rossum. The language that I loved to hate for so long due to what was perceived as a nasty control freak mentality regarding white space sensitivity, and the "lack" of freedom of being able to use {'s, ('s, ['s and ;'s anywhere I wanted. 

I've been using Python as mentioned previously in this blog for both large professional projects as well as certain other miscellaneous personal object-focused projects of mine and about two years ago when accepting a one-off project outside of my normal employment environment, I decided to try utilising my new favourite language for professional work. I must say that it was indeed a very simple program that I could've easily written in Perl, but no where as cleanly as in Python. The standard python libraries/classes included with every distribution (including as a stock install on my OS X 10.3 Panther equipped Apple Macintosh G3 iBook which I was using at the time) made it a clear choice (at least to attempt).

The premise of the program was amongst the most simplest of tasks. The client has a Microsoft Frontpage created website with a form. It currently points to no where because the individual doesn't know anything about capturing form data, so that's where I come in. All that is wanted is for all of the fields to be commingled into an e-mail to be fired off every time someone submits that form. He doesn't initially even want data format and/or content checking, but I inquired anyway (I'm not some code monkey who doesn't try to analyse what the non-coder *really* needs/wants/means). 

The code itself took a matter of about 15 minutes to write down, organise and test. The code is more than fifty-percent blank lines and/or comments. Using the standard smtplib and cgi libraries/classes, this turned out to be an absolute breeze. The advantage of easily stepping through the dictionary (hash) produced by the cgi.FieldStorage() method was a cinch thanks to the built-in cgi.has_key() and cgi.value() methods. 

While this is hardly an example of actual RAD, or any detailed work for a language such as Python, it does give a simple real world example of why I will continue to push for the use of this language. What I wrote worked the first time I wrote it, without any errors. I reads like pseudo-code and it was enjoyable to write because it flowed so easily from my mind into Python's very natural syntax. I used to espouse Perl for such things, but in comparison, I find it difficult to think that I held Perl in such regards for natural syntax. 

This doesn't mean that I'm a one language only person. Much of the application infrastructure I've produced at my current (and previous) employers' establishments I design and implemented in Perl on a multitude of Linux and/or FreeBSD boxes. This has changed as I've moved to a FreeBSD centric platform layout, with the intent of someday using Python as the shining star for any medium to large implementations, and let it share the small jobs with a mix of Perl and Bash scripts. 

I only wish I could get others to give Python a fair shot as it truly is one of those languages that deserve a second look, it may just changed your entire perspective on how you code.