What I find unusual is they publish tutorials when there are plenty of good sources such as Railscasts, but its like the last 10 years doesn't exist to them and they rehash tutorials.
I think it's normal. I've seen it a lot amongst people who are actively learning. It was common in the late 00s in the Ruby world, and is currently common in the JavaScript, Elixir, Rust and Go worlds. It doesn't matter if they're "rehashing" - they're writing stuff as part of the learning process, we haven't got to read it, and I can only celebrate their enthusiasm. (Plus, on some topics, it's handy to have tutorials rewritten for the latest OS and database versions, etc, anyway since things always change slightly.)
You also never quite know how a metaphor or explanation is going to land. There have been many times when I've read several explanations for things and it hasn't really clicked until I came across something that explained it in a way that really worked for me, for whatever reason. Getting more [correct] perspectives and explanations out into the ether is only good; you never know if your tutorial or blog post might be the one that makes it click for someone or not.
You're right on that point. One of the best ways to learn is to try and teach, so it's natural that people would feel compelled to try and explain what they've learned in tutorial form.
The only problem I see with this is you often have cases of the blind leading the blind, and in the case of PHP it's usually off a cliff into a sea filled with razor blades and sharks.
Ruby's got a great community and I hope it can maintain its tone and positive energy with new people joining.
One of the things Ruby needs to do is get a handle on the atrocious documentation situation. Node's community has spectacular documentation for its open source projects, and Ruby's, many being far older, actually look really sad and decrepit by comparison. This includes the Ruby core documentation which is downright terrible in terms of usability.
Comments
What I find unusual is they publish tutorials when there are plenty of good sources such as Railscasts, but its like the last 10 years doesn't exist to them and they rehash tutorials.
I think it's normal. I've seen it a lot amongst people who are actively learning. It was common in the late 00s in the Ruby world, and is currently common in the JavaScript, Elixir, Rust and Go worlds. It doesn't matter if they're "rehashing" - they're writing stuff as part of the learning process, we haven't got to read it, and I can only celebrate their enthusiasm. (Plus, on some topics, it's handy to have tutorials rewritten for the latest OS and database versions, etc, anyway since things always change slightly.)
You also never quite know how a metaphor or explanation is going to land. There have been many times when I've read several explanations for things and it hasn't really clicked until I came across something that explained it in a way that really worked for me, for whatever reason. Getting more [correct] perspectives and explanations out into the ether is only good; you never know if your tutorial or blog post might be the one that makes it click for someone or not.
You're right on that point. One of the best ways to learn is to try and teach, so it's natural that people would feel compelled to try and explain what they've learned in tutorial form.
The only problem I see with this is you often have cases of the blind leading the blind, and in the case of PHP it's usually off a cliff into a sea filled with razor blades and sharks.
Ruby's got a great community and I hope it can maintain its tone and positive energy with new people joining.
One of the things Ruby needs to do is get a handle on the atrocious documentation situation. Node's community has spectacular documentation for its open source projects, and Ruby's, many being far older, actually look really sad and decrepit by comparison. This includes the Ruby core documentation which is downright terrible in terms of usability.
So we can look forward to them creating another 20 test frameworks over the next 10 years? Wonderful...
Maybe. And that would be awesome, I think, because one of them would likely be better than what we have now and worth using.