News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by cpitt on Wednesday July 08, 2015 @12:03PM (#9852490)
When you say "sorry excuse for a REPL", you are referring to the built in repl and not pry (http://pryrepl.org/), right? because pry is freaking awsome!
Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by davexunit on Wednesday July 08, 2015 @12:13PM (#9852611)
The same issue is there. This is a language issue. I want to edit a file and re-evaluate arbitrary expressions with a keystroke. Writing the code and then copy/pasting it into a REPL prompt is not sufficient. Lisp programmers have had excellent live coding environments for a very long time, but with Ruby I must make do with Rails auto-reloading files for me.
Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by vidarh on Wednesday July 08, 2015 @03:52PM (#9854196)
> I want to edit a file and re-evaluate arbitrary expressions with a keystroke. Writing the code and then copy/pasting it into a REPL prompt is not sufficient.

This suggests to me you've not spent much time with Pry. Are you aware of this:

https://github.com/pry/pry/wiki/Editor-integration

It's not perfect - doing it perfect with Ruby is a hard problem, as a method can have been defined and redefined in multiple places. But it works very well.

Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by davexunit on Wednesday July 08, 2015 @04:20PM (#9854332)
>Example: Jump to line 10 in the file, Pry will reload the file after you have finished

It's still just reloading a file. That's not what I want.

Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by vidarh on Wednesday July 08, 2015 @04:41PM (#9854445)
Then what do you want? The file can be either the original source file, or a file containing just the method you wanted to edit, or anything else.

Why do you think you need more?

Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by davexunit on Wednesday July 08, 2015 @05:20PM (#9854676)
>Why do you think you need more?

Because I have access to something much better any time I write Scheme.

Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by vidarh on Thursday July 09, 2015 @02:08PM (#9859648)
Better in what way? How is it better than a buffer to put arbitrary code in to get executed?

So far, from what you've pointed at, you seem to have picked the most restrictive simplistic examples of what Pry is capable of as a counter-example to explain why it isn't enough for you, rather than explain what it is you believe is actually missing.

Point is: You have access to much better than the examples you've pointed at with Pry as well.

Re:Ruby Is Defined by Terrible Tools by JoelMcCracken on Wednesday July 08, 2015 @12:30PM (#9852770)
Not sure if you're aware, but things like this can be done with Emacs.

It really isn't that simple, though, and I've only used it for the most trivial of situations.