Where’s the code?

So I wrote this website for my dad over the weekend. Mostly to replace this site I wrote about 8-9 years ago when I first learned HTML. Dad’s a sculptor and I thought it would be cool for him to have a web presence. Of course to update the site he has to edit these html templates I gave him, create thumbnails and non-huge regular images of the pictures he’s taken, and then ftp the files to his server. Not so fun for a guy born during the year of Pearl Harbor. So I wanted to create a site where he could easily create piece objects (with all the info), put them in galleries, and re-arrange the front page all through a web interface. Now a little over a year ago I did a similar thing for a friend of mine who sells homemade jewelry as my first Rails project and it took a while. Part of that was learning Ruby and Rails all at once, the other part was that I added some cool search functionality that she totally didn’t need, but mostly it was figuring out how to upload and manage images. That was a pain.

Now, armed with acts_as_attachment and a whole bunch more RoR experience, I knocked it out in a weekend. But the weirdest thing was that I didn’t write much code. Using the scaffold_resource generator I quickly threw up some pages to manage my 3 objects (FrontPage, Piece, and Gallery). Then I added some lines to Piece’s model to configure the attachments associated with it. I had to add a few more lines to make Piece’s views and controller deal with the attachments. And the rest of the time I’ve been screwing around with CSS trying to make it look nice.

The new site can not only upload images, but it automatically re-sizes them and creates thumbnails. Pretty bad-ass for a weekend. ‘Course I still have to deploy it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's a Good Flog Score?

I've been using Flog to measure the complexity of my Ruby code and I was wondering how others interpret Flog numbers. I'll go first with my opinions: Score of Means 0-10 Awesome 11-20 Good enough 21-40 Might need refactoring 41-60 Possible to justify 61-100 Danger 100-200 Whoop, whoop, whoop 200 + Someone please think of the children (note: these are scores for an individual method) The 20 - 60 range is interesting to me. Sometimes the complexity of what you're doing will justify the score and other times the method is in desperate need of refactoring. The highest Flog score I've seen in the wild was in the 300's. What's you're personal high and what do you think of my rankings? In other news, I've redesigned the look of my blog so if you only see my post through a reader you might want to stop on by, take a look, and tell me what you think.
Read more

SICP Wasn’t Written for You

The number of software luminaries who sing the praises of “ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs ” (referred to as SICP) is such a long list that you might think only a crazy person would take issue with it. However, to ignore SICP’s problems and continue to blindly recommend it seems just as crazy. SICP was the textbook for MIT’s introductory programming class and was a bit of a departure from other into to computer science textbooks at the time.  Wikipedia sums it up nicely:  “Before SICP, the introductory courses were almost always filled with learning the details of some programming language, while SICP focuses on finding general patterns from specific problems and building software tools that embody each pattern.”  Which sounds awesome, but does essentially say that abstract principles will be introduced before the nuts and bolts of a language.  If you think about that for a minute, you may see where the problems will be. When I was training to be a...
Read more

Point Inside a Polygon in Ruby

Recently my team needed to find out if a point was inside a given polygon and, as usual, we found some code on the internet that did what we wanted. And, as usual, there wasn't much explanation as to what it was doing. Here's the code (after we converted it to Ruby): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 def contains_point? (point) c = false i = -1 j = self .size - 1 while (i += 1 ) < self .size if (( self [i].y <= point.y && point.y < self [j].y) || ( self [j].y <= point.y && point.y < self [i].y)) if (point.x < ( self [j].x - self [i].x) * (point.y - self [i].y) / ( self [j].y - self [i].y) + self [i].x) c = !c end end j = i end return c end end So, you know, it works and I'm grateful to somebody for posting it but we had no idea how it works. So we wrapped 2 tests around it (one where the point is not in the polygon and another where it is...
Read more