11 ms·
> I didn't know what bad documentation was until I used Ruby. Really? I mean, you probably could have made any other point and have it hold even the slightest
by AdieuToLogic 11y ago
> I didn't know what bad documentation was until I used Ruby.
Really? I mean, you probably could have made any other point and have it hold even the slightest amount of water.
OK, let's help you out on finding some good documentation on Ruby:
http://ruby-doc.com/docs/ProgrammingRuby/ http://ruby-doc.com/docs/ProgrammingRuby/
http://ruby-doc.org/ http://ruby-doc.org/
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruby_Programming https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruby_Programming
http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-guide/book/chapter-1.html http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-guide/book/chapter-1.htm...
http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/tutorial.html http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/tutorial.html
- joesb 11y agoDocumentation in Ruby is bad not because of the amount of resource available. But because the community's love on language's meta-programming. Module are dynamically included. Methods are dynamically generated. The generation static document can only give a partial view of the running objects.
- spdionis 11y agoAnd btw that's one of the winning points of PHP. Let me find some great documentation for you: http://php.net http://php.net . That's it, one link is enough.