[chucker]

I was encouraged to post random bits of code, so I figured I'd whip up a small app and post it here.

#!/usr/bin/env ruby# Protocol docs: http://cho.cyan.com/chat/protocol1.html## ToDo:# - implement ignore# - convert encodings (assumptions: CC uses Windows-1252; Ruby uses UTF-8)# - make interactive# - wrap UI around# require 'socket'Version = "1.0d5"DefaultHost = 'cho.cyan.com'DefaultPort = 1812DebugPort = 1813C2SNickname = 10C2SQuit = 15C2SPrivMsg = 20C2SRoomMsg = 30C2SWelcome = 40C2SIgnore = 70S2CNickErr = 10S2CNickSet = 11S2CPrivMsg = 21S2CMessage = 31S2CWhoList = 35S2CWelcome = 40S2CIgnore = 70GroupUser = 0GroupCyan = 1GroupServer = 2GroupGuest = 4Timestamps = 1RotateLines = 1Nickname = "cccccccTest"class CCConnection < TCPSocket	attr_accessor(:alreadyWelcomed, :connectAutomatically)	attr_reader(:host, :port)	def initialize(host=DefaultHost, port=DefaultPort)		super(host, port)		@alreadyWelcomed = 0		@connectAutomatically = 1	end	def c2sCmd(cmd)		self.send(cmd, 0)	end	def c2sNickname(nick)		self.c2sCmd(C2SNickname.to_s + "|" + nick + "\n")	end	def c2sQuit()		self.c2sCmd(C2SQuit.to_s + "\n")	end	def c2sPrivMsg(userclass, nickname, message)		self.c2sCmd(C2SPrivMsg.to_s + "|" + userclass.to_s + nickname + "|^1" + message + "\n")		# e.g. 21|0chucker|^1foo\n	end	def c2sRoomMsg(message)		self.c2sCmd(C2SRoomMsg.to_s + "|^1" + message + "\n")	end	def c2sWelcome()		self.c2sCmd(C2SWelcome.to_s + "|1\n")	end	def c2sIgnore()		self.c2sCmd(C2SIgnore.to_s) # not implemented	endenddef printx(output)	if Timestamps == 1		output = Time.now.strftime('%X ') + output + "\n"	end	print outputenddef errorx(output)	if Timestamps == 1		output = Time.now.strftime('%X ERROR: ') + output + "\n"	end	print outputenddef s2cPrivMsg(line)	if line.slice!(0) && (line[0].chr == GroupServer.to_s) && line.slice!(0) && line.include?("|^1")		messageArray = line.split("|^1")		messageSender = messageArray[0]		messageContent = messageArray[1]		printx "["+messageSender+"] "+messageContent	endenddef s2cWhoList(line)	line.slice!(0)	puts line	whoHash = Hash[*line.split("|").map! {|x| x.split(",")}.flatten]# this isn't actually useful;# we need to store the Group as well, which is completely retarded but such is life. # Two-dimensional array, I suppose.	puts whoHash.class	puts whoHash.to_s	puts whoHash["chucker"]#	when RespWhoList.to_s#		if bufferLines[0][0] == "|"#			while bufferLines[0].length > 0#				bufferLines[0].slice!(0)#				while bufferLines[0][0] != ","#					tmp += bufferLines[0][0]#				end#				puts tmp#				whoList[]#			end#      endenddef s2cWelcome(line)	printx(line)enddef handleResponse(connection, line)	case bufferCmd = line.slice!(0,2)	when S2CPrivMsg.to_s		s2cPrivMsg(line)	when S2CWhoList.to_s		if line.length > 1			if line[0].chr == "|"				line.slice!(0)				s2cWhoList(line)			else				errorx("Erroneous who list response! " + line)				exit			end		else			printx("Room is empty")		end	when S2CWelcome.to_s		if line[0..1] == "|1"			line.slice!(0,2)			s2cWelcome(line)			if connection.alreadyWelcomed == 0				connection.alreadyWelcomed = 1				if connection.connectAutomatically == 1					connection.c2sNickname(Nickname)					sleep 3					connection.c2sPrivMsg(GroupUser, "chucker", "PM test")					connection.c2sRoomMsg("Hi!")					connection.c2sQuit()					exit				end			end		else			errorx("Erroneous welcome response!")			exit		end	else		puts "cmd "+bufferCmd+"\n"	endendconnection = CCConnection.new()connection.c2sWelcome()i=1while # this line / condition needs fixing, i.e. "while connection open"	buffer = connection.recv(1024)  #	puts connection.alreadyWelcomed  	bufferLines = buffer.split(/\r\n/)  	puts bufferLines.length.to_s+" lines"	puts bufferLines[0]	if bufferLines.length > 1		while bufferLines.length > 1			if RotateLines == 1				bufferLines.reverse!			end			handleResponse(connection, bufferLines[0])			bufferLines.slice!(0)		end	else		handleResponse(connection, bufferLines.to_s)	end	i+=1end

There's various big problems with this code, notably:

1. it's severely disorganized
2. it's completely non-interactive
3. outgoing commands are inside the CCConnection object (as desired); incoming ones are not.

As such, the anticipated improvements are:

1. a more useful structure (I've been told by one person I sent this too that it is "actually pretty nicely written" and rather "clean", so I could be expecting too much)
2. a means to make it interactive and eventually wrap a GUI around it
3. a more logical grouping of commands.

Now, I don't know much about 1). As for 2): I know next to nothing about this. Sure, I can use primitive functions like "gets", but that's not exactly my idea. I experimented with ncurses about a year ago, in C, but didn't really like my results of that either. Ideally, I'd like this application to run on Windows, using a toolkit such as WxWidgets or FOX, but, again, I don't even know where to begin. Tutorials only make me blink; the extensions of WxRuby or FXRuby seem extremely non-Ruby-like to me.

Finally, 3): is it possible at all to put received commands in the class? After all, class methods are there to send a message to the class, not to receive one from it, so it's somewhat illogical. Am I missing something?

Any pointers whatsoever appreciated.

[spotcatbug]

Chucker, can we have your English (non-code) description of what this program does? We need to know the higher-level purpose/design of this program in order to determine if you've done a good job of translating that into code.

I can kind of tell what it's up to, but I'd like to know what you were wanting to create.

[rollercoaster375]

I can't really help much with the actual code, as I'm still learning Ruby (Although, I'll look through it... It will probably help my knowledge)

However, RubyCocoa seems like some good bindings, if you're looking for a GUI.

EDIT: Just read you wanted it on Windows... Tk has Ruby bindings, and is pretty well accepted (from the tutorials I've seen)

[chucker]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug Chucker, can we have your English (non-code) description of what this program does? We need to know the higher-level purpose/design of this program in order to determine if you've done a good job of translating that into code. I can kind of tell what it's up to, but I'd like to know what you were wanting to create.

Oh, of course. It's a chat client for a primitive protocol, CyanChat, documented here. It's more of a learning experience than a serious protocol.

Right now, the program logs in with a predefined name ("cccccccTest"), sends a public message "Hi!", sends a private message "PM test" to "chucker" (if he's there) and logs back out. It displays some debugging info as well.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 However, RubyCocoa seems like some good bindings, if you're looking for a GUI. EDIT: Just read you wanted it on Windows... Tk has Ruby bindings, and is pretty well accepted (from the tutorials I've seen)

Yeah, Cocoa won't do. I haven't experimented much with Tk yet; will do.

[AsLan^]

Originally Posted by chucker Well, I did order a book which a friend recommended to me; the first edition of this (Objects first with Java). I won't be able to read it for a while, however. So in the meantime, I'll continue to try and find a decent non-printed introduction

Whatever happened to learning java ?

[AsLan^]

Also, as far as critical assessment goes, if I may be so bold

Does ruby support breaking up your program into different files ? If so that would be a good start to making it more object oriented (if that is what you are still interested in).

A basic textbook example would have you break up your program into a class for the object and a driver class that instantiates the object (and then does stuff with it).

I can see where you have defined CCConnection and then instantiated it again with connection = CCConnection.new(). Normally you would want to separate these into two different files.

Although it doesn't serve much practical purpose now, if you wanted to reuse your CCConnection class in another program without cutting, pasting, and tweaking, you would be better off having it separate from the start.

Of course, if ruby doesn't work like this then... umm, please disregard everything I said

[curiousuburb]

Your code is ugly and its mother dresses it funny.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by curiousuburb Your code is ugly and its mother dresses it funny.

Actually, turns out my brother came by and insulted it enough already, so I'm in the process of rewriting it to use more classes, and then, uh, I'll maybe get back to you.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by AsLan^ Whatever happened to learning java ?

The book arrived at the wrong address, so I won't get to read it for a few months. (Amazon. )

[ghoti]

Java is a much better idea than Ruby, because it forces you to do everything in classes, you have to declare all your variables, there's strict type checking, etc. I don't know Ruby too well (it looks rather straight-forward from your example, though), but apparently it allows you the same sloppy programming that all those glorified scripting languages like Perl, PHP, etc. do. The idea of classes in those languages is nice, but it's usually just slapped on top of the existing stuff, and doesn't really add a lot. Learning a proper language is a much better idea. You can always go back to PHP et al. later. But to understand the concepts of object-oriented programming, you need a more thoroughly object-oriented language.

Edit: And to all those that will now post stuff like "Oh noes! You have to learn teh SmallTalk C++ Eiffel Occam": Java has the big advantage of being sufficiently object oriented, while still being of practical relevance and providing a lot of useful information when errors occur. Java exceptions tell you what happened, and they usually occur close to the actual error. When you go one element past an array in C and overwrite a pointer, you will get an error somewhere that has nothing at all to do with the actual problem in your program. That makes Java the perfect language for learning programming, IMHO.

[hflomberg]

If I commented that it would be better in COBOL, I'd probably get ridiculed?

[ghoti]

Yes.

[hflomberg]

Then I won't

[ghoti]

Unless, of course, you posted a COBOL opera for our amusement.

IF X IS REALLY LESS THAN 5,000 THEN PLEASE ADD FOUR TO X AND STORE IN LOCATION Y;THANK YOU.

SCNR

[chucker]

Originally Posted by ghoti Learning a proper language is a much better idea.

"Proper"? I'm disappointed in hearing such a flamebait from you. I'm really not interested in a "which language is better" discussion. I like this, you like that.

[hflomberg]

If Whatever-x-means Is Less Than 5000
Then
Compute Wherever-y-is Equal Whatever-x-means + 4
On Size-error
Perform Wake-up-the-programmer.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by chucker "Proper"? I'm disappointed in hearing such a flamebait from you. I'm really not interested in a "which language is better" discussion. I like this, you like that.

Well who asked for insults? And I'm not trying to start a flamewar, I'm just saying that if you want to learn object-oriented programming, then use a real object-oriented language. I already outlined in my previous post why I think that Ruby might not be the best language for that.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by hflomberg If Whatever-x-means Is Less Than 5000 Then Compute Wherever-y-is Equal Whatever-x-means + 4 On Size-error Perform Wake-up-the-programmer.

I was just making fun of you, sorry. It's still extremely verbose, but COBOL certainly had a lot of cool features that made it extremely relevant especially for business use. MS could have avoided many of their Excel woes by programming that thing in COBOL. Or using a bit more careful planning when implementing their arithmetic ...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by ghoti Well who asked for insults?

That's for the code, not its syntax. (I guess you didn't get the Wil Shipley reference.)

And I'm not trying to start a flamewar, I'm just saying that if you want to learn object-oriented programming, then use a real object-oriented language. I already outlined in my previous post why I think that Ruby might not be the best language for that.

And I vehemently disagree in calling Java any more "proper" than Ruby or calling a language "real OOP" (it doesn't sound like you know a lot about Ruby).

Mistake of mine to start this thread, it would appear.

[hflomberg]

Ghoti - No offense taken -- I reaped a good income from that language for many years.

[ghoti]

chucker, I posted that because you're obviously interested in learning OOP, and I thought I'd point out a fact, even if you had not asked for it. And believe me, I know a lot of programming languages (though not Ruby, admittedly), and also OOP very well, so I do feel that advice on using a language that may be better suited for a task is of value.

[AsLan^]

Originally Posted by chucker Mistake of mine to start this thread, it would appear.

No mistake. Believe it or not, the other day I was actually wondering how you were getting on with programming.

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by ghoti chucker, I posted that because you're obviously interested in learning OOP, and I thought I'd point out a fact, even if you had not asked for it. And believe me, I know a lot of programming languages (though not Ruby, admittedly), and also OOP very well, so I do feel that advice on using a language that may be better suited for a task is of value.

Ruby is a very powerful, fully OOP (everything is an object) language. It also has exceptions (As does PHP5 - Though, PHP doesn't use them as well as it should) integrated into the language. You should at least look at a language before telling everyone that Java is better.

[ghoti]

Alright, I should have done my homework. It seems to be a rather nice OOP language, I just don't like the weak typing. And since you can write functions outside of classes, the "everything is an object" description isn't quite true.

I still maintain that for learning OOP, Java is superior to practically any other language - I didn't say it was "better" for everything.

[colivigan]

I'll back you up on this one, ghoti. At least with regard to Java being a very good OO learning environment. More than any other language I know, it really tries to nudge you into an OO way of thinking, which is the biggest hurdle you need to clear. I don't know Ruby, so won't try to comment on that. I've had loads of experience with C, C++, and Perl. Java certainly has the cleanest syntax and most elegant object model of any of those languages. The strong typing can be annoying, but is often a blessing in disguise as it will catch many programming errors at compile time. When my twelve-year old son asked me what language he should start with, I told him Java. Then he went out and bought a Python book.

I do agree that "proper" probably isn't a very good term to use. As in any endeavor, you need to select the right tool for the task at hand. Perl tends to be my language of choice for day-to-day, nuts and bolts tasks where you are trying to integrate disparate pieces of software, process lots of text, and get things done quickly. I like Java for big, structured systems and web applications.

I respectfully disagree with those who disparage Perl, Ruby, TCL, etc. as "scripting" languages simply because they are interpreted instead of compiled. They are all mature, robust programming environments in their own right.

[colivigan]

Originally Posted by hflomberg Ghoti - No offense taken -- I reaped a good income from that language for many years.

Did you use punch cards? My freshman year of college was the first year my school didn't use punch cards for CS 101. I just missed out. Then, at my first job, there were still some old-timers that did this. They would sit all day at their desks, key-punching. Then carry the carefully ordered box of cards down two flights of stairs to the computer room so they could run their programs. I once saw a guy trip on the stairs and spill his whole box of cards all over the stairwell. Not a happy camper.

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by ghoti Alright, I should have done my homework. It seems to be a rather nice OOP language, I just don't like the weak typing. And since you can write functions outside of classes, the "everything is an object" description isn't quite true.

That's not true. You can write methods outside of a distinct class, however, they are still methods, but they're added onto the base object (I forget the name at the moment). The call to "self." can be omitted in Ruby, hence giving the illusion of functions, however, they're still methods.

So actually, everything /is/ an object. (Even language Keywords!)

[chucker]

What he said. Writing a method outside a class creates an implicit receiver, namely 'self'.

[ghoti]

Okay, now you lost me. You're saying that functions like handleResponse in chucker's example are part of an implicit class? Then what about the while loop at the end that's not even contained in a function? And besides, self doesn't have anything to do with that. When a function within CCConnection calls another one, it can leave out the self (and also doesn't have to pass it as a parameter, which has to be done implicitly, or the function won't know what object it belongs to), but that still means that functions within the same class are called, and not the functions of some implicit "catch-all" class.