Alright. Fine. I finally give in. I need to learn a functional programming language. I've tried before and given up. First I tried Erlang and it was too complex and strange. Then I tried Haskell and it went from simple to crazy. Then I picked up Clojure and I was like "Woah. Verbose!"
Learning Ruby has really punched a hole in my mind. Ruby was my first language and has really spoiled me. Every time I pick up a language learning book and the sample Hello World is 5 lines long and 300 characters I can feel the information leak out of my ears. My brain doesn't even want to give it a try.
I can't afford it anymore though. I need to get a home run or go home. I need to become a professional programmer. No more of this hobby futzing around. Functional programming languages are my only sane solution.
In the last two weeks I had decided to learn Rails. I've always had the resources to learn, but I've always found something else distracting to do. In meeting with other local developers at the Eugene, Oregon Web Developer Meetup (very creative name) I talked with at least three Rails developers with jobs developing in Rails locally. This inspired me to learn.
Yet again I found myself distracted by something shiny and less boring: Padrino, a Rails substitute built on my favorite microframework Sinatra. After failing to get it to work (an issue with Bundle I still haven't figured out) I decided to check out the 201mb screencast tutorial. Eleven seconds into the screencast I realized how little I knew about web development and Ruby.
This new insight prompted me to review over my projects and progress. I found that I had been working on learning Ruby for the last 6..7 months and that all of my projects remain unfinished. There are a lot of areas in Ruby that I don't understand or use like metaprogramming. A lot of the unique syntax still escapes me.
I've always been someone who is critical of how computer filesystems are shaping up these days. I think my biggest contention is that these developers can't come up with a memorable name at all. Most people who care about this topic will shrug that off as a small thing (If they don't suggest it's a feature).
Which is fine by me because I have a ton of ammo lef to throw at these things. Filesystems are a very integral part of the operating system. Not only is it a technical aspect, but also a user experience situation. This might seem like an odd thought but consider this:
Opening a window on your desktop?
Fixing a crash?
Installing a program?
Listening to music on your media player?
Copying a movie to disk?
Transfering files to your company?
Sending an email with attachments?
All of these require using the filesystem as represented by the file manager software, or worse the command line (UGH!). Yet filesystems are rarely (If ever) focused on how users deal with them. Instead they spend hundreds of hours improving how the computer handles fuck ups. God forbid they make these things friendly or intuitive, because then they wouldn't get to work on problems like these:
In ext3 the number of subdirectories that a directory can contain is limited to 32,000. This limit has been raised to 64,000 in ext4, and with the "dir_nlink" feature it can go beyond this (although it will stop increasing the link count on the parent). To allow for continued performance given the possibility of much larger directories, Htree indexes (a specialized version of a B-tree) are turned on by default in ext4. This feature is implemented in Linux kernel 2.6.23. Htree is also available in ext3 when the dir_index feature is enabled.
Or this one:
The ext4 filesystem can support volumes with sizes up to 1 exabyte and files with sizes up to 16 terabytes.
Conventional file system interfaces require users to interact with a hierarchical classification of their files (taxonomy). In this sense, the user of a hierarchical file system is confronted with most of the disciplines in knowledge management, which includes creating and maintaining a consequent vocabulary and naming conventions in order to be able to remember where to look for files in the hierarchy. This is opposed to the natural approach of memory, knowing what to look for.
Not enough for you? Check out this other quote from that post:
Whilst most advanced computer users have occasionally had to struggle through the hierarchy on their hard disk, this inconvenience does not seem to warrant redesigning how files and folders are stored and retrieved. However, anyone who has studied how application users store files realises that the file system is quite a large barrier to all but the most advanced users. The interface designers for Windows 95 realised that most users did not understand the folder/file hierarchy and those that did had a hard time making it work for their filing needs (Sullivan 1996).
Furthermore, it is not at all clear that a strict hierarchical classification of files is always appropriate (Dourish 2000). Symbolic links, aliases, shortcuts and other patches have been added to most operating systems in an effort to allow users to make the same files visible from multiple places in the file hierarchy. (Of course, these mechanisms work differently in different operating systems). This kludge clearly points to some more systemic problem.
Gary Marsden, Improving the Usability of the Hierarchical File System
Filesystems don't fail just at organization and usage they also fail at display! Did you know that most major filesystems are case sensitive? Of course you did, because you've repeatedly seen errors as you type "cd /repository/Ruby/scripts/" instead of "cd /repository/ruby/scripts/". How many times does the average user really need to have to different files with different case?
In any case I sit here waiting for a file system that focuses not on hierarchy, but tags and metadata. Also, a cool name maybe? Might be asking too much from these people.
I'm working hard to make my way in the tech world. I keep up with current trends and ideas. I've focused myself on the software side of the world even though I'm hardware savvy. I've also decided to be a programmer over everything else. Even more so I've decided to be an web developer in the programming community. The bigger problems I've had is that I don't yet have the proper tools to really get out there and I'm not exactly in Startup/Tech Central (ie, everywhere but Bay Area and Silicon Valley).
In other news I'm going through what I call my yearly Ubuntu Period (classy, I know). It's a bi-yearly event where I get so damn frustrated with the million small paper cuts from Ubuntu + GNOME/KDE/Xfce. Mostly usability issues, but also design aesthetics and UI/UX fuck ups. It boggles me how much these people seem to miss. Is it general apathy toward usability or ignorance? Or maybe they don't have the resources. In any case it's during these Ubuntu Hate-fests that I renounce Ubuntu forever and try to build my own linux from scratch.
Hint: I usually just go back to Ubuntu.
Getting an OS together that's both clean and easy is fucking balls hard... For Linux distro-admins apparently. Apple does a great job at giving you the very basics with the iPhone and then giving you the freedom and (powerful) ability to get anything else you need. Why can't Ubuntu be set up more like that? Here's a quick step by step that should be followed:
Release a structured and activity/social friendly Repository site. Where documentation, good design, and constant updates are easy and approachable.
Develop an easy to use and intuitive application downloading program. PRO-TIP: Software Center was a fuck up and Add/Remove is a disgrace. Start over with the good ideas, drop the bad.
Create a minimal OS that only provides: A basic install guide (Loading the default choices), and an advanced "Chose which ones you want installed" categorical install guide.
Ship, Social Network, PR.
Write a CC-like FOSS license (Yes, I know about GPL and MIT. They aren't cool enough for regular people to care about.)
Promote a $1.00 application market so that developers flock to the community.
This is how it should be done and from here on out if you're smart, Linux. The gray beards and the gurus & grognards won't live forever, and considering flame wars their blood pressure must be horrible. Eventually you'll need more developers from the young and new. These guys aren't going to be interested unless it's iPhone Easy.
One of the newer projects I've been working on lately is what I call Looking Glass. The Looking Glass project is a script written in the Ruby programming language. The script takes content and keys and produces HTML output. The keys are defined blocks that contain regular expressions and style properties paired with values. Many people will instantly recognize the similarity between a Glass list and Cascading Style Sheets. Here's an example of two key blocks.
The similarities should be rather stark. One of the large differences is that Looking Glass has less properties and values, focusing mainly on typography and similar. Key blocks that start with a "!" will automatically look for other matching values. It's this kind of behavior which will allowing certain stylistic freedom and ease of developing. Changing your stylehseet is spot on simple.
This project got it's start after I heard about a similar python scrip that was being used with Ruby markdown/textile generators. I figured a Ruby version wouldn't be a bad idea. The project was folded into another idea I had for simple stylesheet like syntax highlighting instead of the bulky mess that is XML.
The project also has the secondary benefit of being a great learning tool for me. Writing my own parser has been rather enjoyable and helped me realize which areas I need to improve on.