6 ms·
Giving away my Rails 3.0 book. Code examples also available on Github.
- scottshea 15y agoThank you. This is coming at a very opportune time for me.
- g-garron 15y agoThank you very much.
- shimonamit 15y agoOff topic: what is the font you used in the PDF book? UPDATE: ...and thank you much for the materials!
- bryanbibat 15y agoInconsolata (http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html) for code and Ubuntu (http://font.ubuntu.com/ http://font.ubuntu.com/) for everything else
- pkrefta 15y agoTHANK YOU - sorry for caps but thanks are big.
- danest 15y agoByran why don't you sell the book to your own students? I know a lot of my professors sell their own books through the book store (with no real publisher) they just print it out and put a cover on it.
- bryanbibat 15y agoEthics, I guess? LOL. Not really keen on selling a typo-filled book on a non-current version of a software.
- punman 15y agothis book is a gem! (pun intended)
- molecule 15y ago"You are free to distribute this book to anyone you want, so long as... it is not altered..." That doesn't seem consistent w/ the intended usage patterns of git and github, e.g. github's 'Fork' button is displayed prominently on every src page, for the purpose of alteration and distribution of src.
- bryanbibat 15y agoNoted. Any suggestions on a good license to use for this document to allow non-commercial derivative works?
- noahc 15y agoYou're looking for this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Although, there is one that prevents modification as well if that's what you're looking for.
- bryanbibat 15y agoThanks! Will update the document tomorrow to use that in case no one makes a better suggestion.
- albb0920 15y agoThanks for using cc-by-nc.
- zedshaw 15y agoNo, that license allows remixing and adapting the work. That would let people butcher the book and leave broken copies that frustrate students.
- noahc 15y agoZed, that's what he wanted. As I suggested there are alternatives to prevent someone from changing even one word.
- danneu 15y agoEven though I consider myself an intermediate Rails programmer, I read through every beginner guide I can find to pick up the small nuances that differ from programmer to programmer. Thanks!
- auxbuss 15y agoYou're in good company. Mikhail Botvinnik, many times world chess champion, was known to watch tv programmes about chess. The theory being that you can never reinforce the fundamentals enough. I concur, in any field of study.
- rrpp 15y agohow do you download the book?
- qx24b 15y agohttps://github.com/bryanbibat/rails-3_0-tutorial/blob/master/student_manual.pdf?raw=true https://github.com/bryanbibat/rails-3_0-tutorial/blob/master...
- pduan 15y agoThanks!
- angryasian 15y agothanks for taking the time with this. 1. Any plans to update for 3.1 ? 2. I think its strange to address the dsl rspec for testing vs the standard rails unit test and not address other dsl like haml, sass, coffeescript (3.1). I think if you're going to go by rails community conventions vs rails framework convention then haml and sass should of been introduced.
- ryanbigg 15y agoWhile I can't answer #1, I can give a reason for #2. When you're teaching people Ruby on Rails you would/should be teaching them what exists in the framework by default. The default templating language for views happens to be ERB-powered HTML, and so that should be taught. Teaching haml and Rails at the same time would only confuse people as they will need to learn Rails AND haml at the same time. If anything, it would be better to introduce this as a "bonus chapter" or an appendix and let people choose for themselves rather than forcing them to learn something excessive. Now, you may think that I would argue the same point for SCSS too. But now that SCSS is the default within Rails 3.1, it is "right" to teach it at the same time as Rails. The "leap" from CSS to SCSS is not as large as the one from HTML to haml, either.
- angryasian 15y ago>When you're teaching people Ruby on Rails you would/should be teaching them what exists in the framework by default. this was exactly my point. You introduce RSpec rather than rails unit testing.
- ryanbigg 15y agoI would do the same thing, as Test::Unit's syntax is more confusing to a newbie than RSpec. For instance: assert_equal 2, @thing.method vs @thing.method.should == 2. RSpec is also used by the majority of Rails developers (based on a random stat I pulled out of the air and due to my experience on many, many Rails projects) and it should be treated as the default, even though it is not.
- hwf829 15y ago<a href="http://railscasts.com/episodes/282-upgrading-to-rails-3-1?autoplay=true>upgrade http://railscasts.com/episodes/282-upgrading-to-rails-3-1?au... that app to 3.1 with this screen cast</a>