[nicebyte]

i don't think it was even funny the first time.

reading this stuff i always feel like the author is trying to keep my attention by jiggling some car keys in front of my face as if i am an infant. this applies to books like learn you a haskell too.

[ertian]

Eh, humor is subjective.

If a person was anxious to learn Ruby ASAP and found this guide, it would've been frustratingly sparse and meandering. And the humor is too laid-back to be laugh-out-loud funny. But I think you just weren't the target audience.

I found it on a dull day at school, and just kept reading the way you might a web comic. I wasn't rolling on the floor, but I cracked a smile pretty often. And I picked up ruby (and some new-to-me concepts like lambdas, closures, etc) almost by accident.

[DoctorOW]

Fully agree. There are lots of "normal" programming guides for a language as popular as Ruby. This is really good at appealing to the type of person who would really like Ruby.

[cambalache]

I agree, but I really hate those books that try to be funny and quirky when trying to explain a technical subject. Give me K&R every single time.

The problem is not the humor or the silliness, the problem is that for a newbie it is impossible to distinguish what it is important from what is not, what is an exaggerated truth for comic effect and what it isnt. This is a sin very common in popular science/technical books.

"Dont worry about not understanding General Relativity. In a certain sense the concept is very simple, space bends according to the mass/energy distribution like fabric under a heavy ball (maybe the bowling ball of your uncle Bob), so it becomes curved.... and that's why you derive the Christoffel symbols from the Lagrangian of the equation of motion under a given metric.

[RangerScience]

There are two kinds of people who are trying to learn code: Those who already think like a programmer, and those who don't.

K&R is for one of those. _why's guide is for the other.

[darthrupert]

And those of us who are not dumb enough to be locked into a single narrow mindset will enjoy them both.

[RangerScience]

TBF, input is generally linear; prior to experiencing both, one will be better suited to go first. Usually because it makes the broader concept-space - and thus the second - more generally accessible.

[brazzy]

...or else!

[booleandilemma]

Before stumbling upon Why’s Guide my only experience with programming literature had been dry textbooks.

The whimsy was a welcome relief.

Someone with your taste would be better off reading The Art of Computer Programming though.

[djur]

TAOCP isn't exactly a laugh riot but Knuth is kind of known for his sense of humor.

[knodi123]

Knuth's presentation on his new project, a replacement for TeX, called iTeX, which offers monthly subscription plans, and discounts for seniors and children under 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKaI78K_rgA

[rottc0dd]

Well, I think it is subjective.

I found it delightful and I just found it a couple of months ago. It intrigued me and encouraged me to learn the language. And I am reading ruby guides and manuals in late nights. I have no idea _why.

I think the book spoke to my heart. Or I am an infant who is attracted to weird stuff. My point is, it is helpful to some people.

[inopinatus]

I have a similar personal reaction but let’s recognise that the whimsical narrative mode of teaching appeals very greatly to many others, including folks that hadn’t previously realised they could program a computer too.

I do not require that my peers think in the same fashion as I do. Quite the opposite.