The best kittens, technology, and video games blog in the world.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Slides for my masters thesis

Ronaldinho by katia. from flickr (CC-BY)The thesis is: RenderMan Compiler for the RPU Ray Tracing Architecture.

Here are the slides in PDF and SXI format.

Now in the process I discovered how cool Impress was. Before making the slides I only vaguely remembered how totally lame was PowerPoint - especially its math typography looking like it was done by a 4 year old kid, and I considered writing HTML+CSS for Opera the best way of making slides. Now what changed my mind was that Opera doesn't seem to be able to export the slides to any other format (like PDF), and the slides look horrible in any other browsers. Why isn't Firefox compatible here ? It's using almost only official CSS. Well, I'll rant about how Firefox sucks sometime later :-)

So Impress is somewhat less lame than PowerPoint. The good thing is that making nice Web 2.0-looking (with gradients) flowcharts is actually easier than with Opera. The huge bad thing is that there are no predefined templates, and the ones I could find online were rather weak - like not having special title slide format, and using a moral equivalent of Comics Sans for slide numbers.

Oh yeah, end of the rant. Just look at the slides and enjoy :-)

Friday, August 25, 2006

All your Pluto are belong to us

So cute by Gui, o gato from flickr (CC-NC-ND)Getting Things Done methodology is a great thing, especially the "Am I the right person to do it" part. What's the most amazing is how many things get done on their own if you follow it. One such thing happened yesterday. I had on my TODO list since like forever writing something on the Polish Wikipedia on Pluto's controversy as a planet. I mean - we can all see it's totally lame and it shouldn't be one.

So let's do some GTD on it:

  • Would it take less than 2 minutes ? Well, not really - documenting the controversy would take at least an hour or two.
  • Am I the right person to do it ? Oh yeah, why should I be doing it - wouldn't it be better to make IAU make Pluto not-a-planet instead, so I don't have to do any work ?
And it worked - I made IAU demote Pluto by sheer willpower, and I don't have to write anything about it now :-D

Now, let's delegate the "Free elections in Belarus" item ...

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Programming in Blub

Photo by Marc Crow from flickr (CC-BY-ND)Languages vary in power. Like Paul Graham, let's take a language of intermediate power and call it Blub. Now someone who only speaks Blub can look at less powerful languages and see that they're less powerful. But if they look at more powerful languages, they won't think of them as more powerful - such language are going to look simply weird, as it is often very hard to see the power without actually being fluent in them. Even if you are shown a few examples where some language beats your favourite Blub, you're more likely to think something along the lines of "who would actually need such feature" or "well, it's just some syntactic sugar", not "omg, I've been coding Blub all my life, I have been so damn wrong". I'm not going to criticize such thinking, in many cases weird is just weird, not really more powerful. Oh by the way, while Paul Graham noticed this paradox, he is also its victim - thinking that his favourite language (Common Lisp) is the most powerful language ever, so when it doesn't have some feature (object-oriented programming), then by definition such feature is "just weird", and not really powerful. Of course we all know better ;-) Now when you really get those features of a more powerful language, you can sometimes program better even in Blub. Why am I talking about that ? Because we can move one step forward and consider Ruby our new Blub. It is pretty much the most powerful general purpose language right now, but it still doesn't taze a few nice features natively :-) Fortunately we can try to understand and emulate them. Multiple dispatch - Think about addition. Addition can easily be a method (like in Ruby or Smalltalk). You send one object a message (+, other_object). So far so good. Now how about adding Complex class ? Complex's method + must know how to add Complex numbers and normal Float numbers. But how can we tell Float what to do about Complex arguments ? Float#+ is already taken and doesn't have a clue about Complex numbers. We need to do some ugly hacks like redefining +. Or some more complex example - pattern matching. Regexp matches String. We want to implement pattern Parser that matches String. And make Regexp match IOStream. It's ugly without multiple dispatch. Of course Ruby is not a Blub and we can easily make defgeneric ;-)

def defgeneric(name, class0, *classes, &block)
  old_method = begin class0.instance_method(name) rescue nil end

  class0.send(:define_method, name) {|*args|
      if{|c,a| a.is_a? c}
, *args)
      elsif old_method
          method_missing(name, *args)

defgeneric(:+, Complex, Object) {|a,b|
  a +

defgeneric(:+, Complex, Complex) {|a,b| +, +

defgeneric(:+, Float, Complex) {|a,b| + b
Now Ruby uses a trick with coerce for handling +, but if you ever need your own generics, here they are :-) Higher-order functions - everyone knows how to use first-order functions (those that operate only on normal non-functional objects). Most people know how to use second-order functions (those that operate on first-order functions) like map or each. But is it useful to go any higher ? It turns out that it is. Imagine a container. It contains second-order methods like each, each_with_index, each_pair, each_by_depth_first_search, and two dozens other each_whatever. It also contains other second-order functions like map, filter, all?, any?, sort_by etc. Ever wanted map_with_index ? How about all_pairs? ? I sure did. In Ruby 1.9 you can use Enumerator::Enumerable for that !
["a", "b", "c"]{|a,i| "#{i}: #{a}"} # ["0: a", "1: b", "2: c"]
Now if you look at this example long enough, you can see that it's an extremely elegant use of third-order functions :-) Pattern matching - languages like Objective Caml do a lot of pattern matching. Pattern matching is basically a thing that verifies that given value matches given pattern and at the same time it deconstructs the value into pieces according to that pattern. For example this function is Objective Caml matches its argument to one of two patterns - either [] pattern (empty list) or hd::tl pattern (a non-empty list - bind hd to head of the list, and tl to its tail).
let rec sum = function
| [] -> 0
| hd::tl -> hd + (sum tl)
Or take a look at Perl/Ruby's regular expressions - they deconstruct string into $1, $2 etc. Now it's the second feature - deconstruction - that gives pattern matching all its power. So why do most programming languages lack such feature ? My guess is that it's really difficult to make patterns that deconstruct your object extensible - and verification alone isn't really all that useful. Oh yeah, and we sometimes want to build such patterns at run-time. In Objective Caml we cannot do that - we need some way to tell the language whether hd means "match contents of hd" or "match anything and put into hd". Now what if we were able to say ?:
def sum(x)
  case x
  when []
  when [_{hd}, *_{tl}]
    hd + sum(tl)
Useful ? Somewhat. How about this one ?
if xml_node =~ xmlp(_{name}, {:color=>_{c}}, /Hello, (\S+)/)
  print "A #{c}-colored #{name} greets #{$1} !"
Now as far as I can tell nobody actually implemented that, but I get a feeling that using Binding.of_caller, Parse::Tree and something like defgeneric it should be possible. Macros - well, you can do that too :-)

Thursday, August 17, 2006

magic/xml tutorial

Picture by Fenn L. from Cute Overload! (fair use)I wrote a magic/xml tutorial. It documents how to use magic/xml to load, build, and query XML documents. I tried to limit it to the most important things.

Enjoy the tutorial, and if you have any questions, just ask :-)

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Movie reviews

Screenshot from School Rumble by taw (public domain)Movies I watched recently, more or less in order of enjoyability, all from IMDB Top 100:

  • Blade Runner (1982, 8.3, #99) - This movie is absolutely great. In fact much better than the book. Unfortunetaly there is no way I can tell you what's so great about it without spoiling - just be sure to watch the director's cut (hint hint).
  • Singin’ in the Rain (1952, 8.4, #68) - Normally I have low tolerance for musicals, but this one is wonderful. The characters of Don Lockwood, Lina Lamont, and Kathy Selden are just great compared to what is typically being served in the romance/commedy kind of movies. If you want to see just one musical in your life - check out this one.
  • To Kill a Mockingbird (1962, 8.5, #41) - A movie that at the same times exists in a highly unreal world filled with magic, and does serious social commentary on the 1930s' American South. Like Dogville, except for being much less dark.
  • The Maltese Falcon (1941, 8.4, #57) - Noir classic. Multilayer conspiracies, murders, ruthlessness, big money, and evil women all over the place.
  • The Sting (1973, 8.3, #81) - a classic of the "con artist" genre that we all love so much. As usual, there are conspiracies within conspiracies, and nothing is quite the way it seems. Definitely a fun watch.
  • The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948, 8.5, #52) - A bunch of guys go search for gold in the Sierra Madre. But sitting on bags of gold worth more than they ever earned in their lives can easily lead to paranoia ...
  • Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939, 8.3, #87) - yay, a very early movie about corruption in national politics. Some naive guy gets to become a replacement senator, when the regular one dies during the term. Then when he tries to actually be a senator and not just a puppet, he gets confronted with the power of some rich guy who controls all politicians in the whole state. Pretty funny.
  • On the Waterfront (1954, 8.3, #84) - the workers and a priest struggle against exploitation by mob-controlled labour unions. Mildly noir, somewhat enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the director was an asshole.
  • Modern Times (1936, 8.5, #66) - some Charlie Chaplin stuff. Watchable, but I wasn't terribly impressed. The Great Dictator was somehow more enjoyable.
And in category anime:
  • School Rumble - Hypergenki high school commedy. Harima loves Tenma, Tenma loves Karasuma (the whole network of unreturned love interests is getting even more complex later), everybody is totally weird and doing absurd things all the time. Plenty of fun to watch.
  • High School Girls - Ecchi high school commedy. It proves that there is such things as too many panty-shots. Totally awesome.
  • Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha - Totally ubercute (and they did actually say "mahou shoujo" in the title, congratulations). One feels there wasn't enough plot for the whole season, and the characters are rather bland (except for Fate, who is actually great), and ubercuteness may not be enough to save the series.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

magic/xml beats XQuery at W3C's XML Query Use Cases

Photo by Maria S. from CuteOverload! (fair use)It is now official - magic/xml is the best XML library ever ;-). magic/xml solutions to W3C XML Query Use Cases problem set are on average whole 1% smaller than XQuery solutions, and it probably does far better than that on more neutral benchmarks.

The Use Cases were really cool. Having a set of "real" (well, real enough) third-party problems made it possible to make magic/xml even more expressive. If I relied on my problems, they would probably contain my biases on what's the "right" way to process XML. Full sources can be viewed at magic/xml's website, including pretty-printed comparison of all solutions (pretty printing by Coderay). Here's just a short summary of cool new features.

XML.load(source) - stolen from CDuce's load_xml. source can be a file name, URL or a file handler. Oh yeah, and it supports "real" HTTPS now.

Pseudoattributes - XML has real attributes, but some people insists on using dummy elements. So you see a lot of <foo><bar>Hello</bar></foo>. magic/xml lets you pretend these are "real" attributes. You can read and even write to them and it will do the right thing: node[:@bar] += ", world!".

Multielement children/descendant paths - node.children(:p, :*, :ul, :li, :*, :a) can find links inside elements of unordered lists inside paragraphs. Well like XPath /p//ul/li//a basically. Now I could have implemented XPath, but we're already beating XQuery anyway, and I have a vague feeling that letting arbitrary objects be path elements we can do some really cool things using === and =~.

node =~ /regular expression/ - just a small cool thing, node =~ :foo matches if node has tag foo, node =~ /regular expression/ matches if text inside it (with markup stripped) matches, and so on. It's not that cool on its own, but if connected with multielement paths it could be something extremely powerful.

tree fragments - ever wanted to extract "part of BODY between second H1 and the first TABLE" ? node.range(start, end) and node.subsequence(start, end) can do the right thing for you (either including parents or not). The programs will become much easier to understand than iterating over individual nodes and checking whether they're in the right range or not.

So basically you now have 57 realistic examples of using magic/xml for XML parsing, enjoy :-)


Amethyst cut by Wela49 from Wikimedia Commons (GFDL)This is some old stuff, but I haven't blogged about it before so here it goes. Amethyst is basically Perl with Ruby syntax and you can get it here. What it does is parsing Amethyst source (with Ruby-like syntax) using Parse::RecDescent, generating Perl code for the whole program at once (this is a very fragile part), and eval'ing it. Now Ruby and Perl have totally different sematics, so Amethyst hacks around both a lot - for example it can tell whether a Perl object "is" a string, or a number, so + operator acts the expected way on both, even though Perl pretends not to know that. Some examples. Iterators work:

arr = [1,2,3]
arr.each{|element| print(element,"\n")}
The code gets compiled to:
($arr = [1,2,3]);
   my ($element)=@_;
   {call(function('print'), undef, $element, "\n")}
And of course prints 1 2 3. The following code prints "22" and "157" as expected:
xs = "15"
xi = xs.to_i

yi = 7
ys = yi.to_s

zi = xi + yi
zs = xs + ys

print(zi, "\n")
print(zs, "\n")
$xs, $xi, $yi, $ys are all native Perl objects, the same you'd get if you said $xs="15"; $yi=7 ; etc. Can you guess how to make a function that can tell them apart without looking inside Amethyst source code ? ;-) Don't expect too much. Unlike RLisp which is basically an usable (even if alpha-quality) programming language, Amethyst was just a single-evening "be evil" session, and half of it was spent learning Parse::RecDescent. Still, it was a lot of fun :-)

Saturday, August 05, 2006

W3C's XML Query Use Cases ported to magic/xml

Photo from flickr, by annia316, CC-BY.
W3C's XQuery Use Cases list typical usage scenarios for XQuery. As the plan behind magic/xml is to beat every other XML processing system in terms of expressiveness, I started recoding these use cases in magic/xml. So far the first three use cases (23 queries) got recoded. A few examples follow. Complete sources are packed together with magic/xml library. Query XMP 1: List books published by Addison-Wesley after 1991, including their year and title. In XQuery:
 for $b in doc("")/bib/book
 where $b/publisher = "Addison-Wesley" and $b/@year > 1991
   <book year="{ $b/@year }">
    { $b/title }
In magic/xml:
XML.bib! {
   XML.from_file('bib.xml').children(:book) {|b|
       if b.child(:publisher).text == "Addison-Wesley" and b[:year].to_i > 1991
           book!({:year => b[:year]}, b.children(:title))
Query TREE 1: Prepare a (nested) table of contents for Book1, listing all the sections and their titles. Preserve the original attributes of each
element, if any. In XQuery:
declare function local:toc($book-or-section as element()) as element()*
   for $section in $book-or-section/section
        { $section/@* , $section/title , local:toc($section) }

    for $s in doc("book.xml")/book return local:toc($s)
In magic/xml:
def local_toc(node)
       XML.section(c.attrs, c.child(:title), local_toc(c))

XML.toc! {
   add! local_toc(XML.from_file('book.xml'))
Query SEQ 1: In the Procedure section of Report1, what Instruments were used in the second Incision?
for $s in doc("report1.xml")//section[section.title = "Procedure"]
return ($s//incision)[2]/instrument
XML.from_file('report1.xml').descendants(:section) {|s|
   next unless s.child(:"section.title").text == "Procedure"
   print s.descendants(:incision)[1].child(:instrument)
magic/xml solutions are on average 10% longer than XQuery. That's a great result, because:
  • I don't think any other XML processing library gets results even close to that. So far only special-purpose XML processing languages like XQuery or CDuce were able to be that expressive.
  • 10% more characters is very little in exchange for full power of Ruby. And you don't have to learn a new language, working with magic/xml is almost like working with plain Ruby.
  • The benchmarks come from XQuery guys and show what is good at, so in a more unbiased selection magic/xml would probably do better than that. For example magic/xml assumes real XML attributes (<a href="">Google</a>) are the common case, not dummy tags with text (<a><href><content>Google</content></a>) , while XQuery assumes it the other way around. Then maybe magic/xml should get a few convenience methods for the other case.
  • If special XML processing languages aren't significantly more expressive, do we even need them ? Performance comes from good profilers, but expressiveness cannot be hacked onto the system afterwards. So even if magic/xml is slow sometimes, it doesn't really matter.
Anyway, enjoy :-) Official beta release is coming soon.

XML stream processing with magic/xml

Photo from flickr, by katia., CC-BY.
There are basically two ways to process XML files:
  • Read them into memory as trees, and have all the cool methods. This works only with rather small XML files, especially since XML data takes more space in memory than on the disk.
  • Process them as streams of events. This is usually very inconvenient.
Oh yeah, and the ever popular "forget they're XML and just use regular expressions to extract the data", when we have a big XML file. This is usually more convenient than processing stream events ;-) An obvious solution to all problems would be processing the document as a stream of fragment trees. For example a Wikipedia dump consists of a header, and then a long stream of page entries. Even when the whole dump is huge, each page entry is tiny and easily fits in the memory. Perl's XML::Twig did something like that. But it wasn't that simple to use. Here comes magic/xml, with stream processing support that's easier that ever. Simply call complete! on a node and it magically gets all the children read. If you don't - you will keep getting its children in a nice stream. Here's a script that extracts article IDs and titles from a Wikipedia dump:
XML.parse_as_twigs(STDIN) {|node|
 next unless == :page
 t = node.children(:title)[0].contents
 i = node.children(:id)[0].contents
 print "#{i}: #{t}\n"
And it extracts all relevant data from XML which looks basically like that: <mediawiki> <siteinfo>...</siteinfo> <page> <title>Astronomia</title> <id>1</id> ... </page> ... <page> ... </page> </mediawiki> It took 19 minutes to process a 405MB dump ( on my Athlon 1400, but it only took 3MB of memory ! And if we replace REXML parser backend by something faster, it should get a real speed boost. And when we get YARV. Oh well ;-)

Friday, August 04, 2006

magic/xml really works

Photo from Commons by Rasbak, GFDL.
In the last few days magic/xml progressed a lot and I already use it in some of my programs. Let's cut the bullshit, and go straight to the code. First one that parses ATOM feed for my blog and prints post titles and URLs:
require 'magic_xml'
doc = XML.from_url ""
doc.children(:entry).children(:link) {|c|
   print "#{c[:title]}\n#{c[:href]}\n\n" if c[:rel] == "alternate"
And one that interacts with to get list of all my posts on given subject and nicely format, for websites like RLisp's and magic/xml's (used from eruby page template):
require 'magic_xml'
deli_passwd ="/home/taw/.delipasswd").chomp
url = "http://taw:#{deli_passwd}"
XML.from_url(url).children(:post).reverse.each_with_index {|p,i|
   print"#{i+1}. ", XML.a({:href => p[:href]}, p[:description]))
I guess that's enough code to convince everyone that magic/xml is not completely useless. Or is there any library in which either code would be simpler than that (or as simple) ? Anyway in the process I discovered two useful Ruby utilities. One is rdoc. It works kinda like Perldoc (or like Javadoc if you're from the dark side). You simply write comments before a methods and they get automatically copied into documentation. This is highly cool, as it requires very little work. You can now read magic/xml's documentation online. The other cool thing is rcov, which shows which lines of code were executed and which weren't. If you run rcov on your unit tests, then you get information which methods aren't tested for free. And that's a great way to find potential bugs. For an example take a look at magic/xml's coverage.

XML is huge and ugly

Photo from Commons by Over Fresh, public domain.
It's high time someone said that. There is a nice and elegant subset of XML that everybody uses. It looks more or less like this:
<foo color="blue"><p>Some text &amp; and a bit more</p><br/>
So we have tags, attributes, text and the standard &amp;-entities for escaping (&gt; < & " '). All in UTF-8. And maybe also HTML-compatible entities and comments, but they are already a bit annoying. Now the XML standard is way fatter and uglier than that. It contains:
  • DTDs. DTDs do not follow the XML syntax, and according to the standard, they can be dumped straight into any XML document and the program is supposed to handle all that. And they do more than just validation ! They can set attribute default values, define text replacements and do a lot of other useless things. This is the worst thing about XML. Of course nobody actually dumps such things into documents, the most people do is a single (and ugly anyway) DOCTYPE declaration, as if we couldn't use MIME types for that.
  • Non-standard entities. What does &foo; mean ? Well, it can mean anything. And it really sucks, because the program doesn't want to deal with escaping issues. So the program wants "AT&T", not "AT&amp;T". And what is parser supposed to return when it gets "&foo; &amp; &bar;" ?
  • CDATA - Yeah, let's provide a second and completely redundant way of escaping characters to make everyone's life harder.
  • XML declarations. These <?xml ... ?> things that can specify version and encoding. As if the standard couldn't simply say "XML documents are encoded in UTF-8".
  • Processing instructions. So now every program is supposed to somehow deal with <?mspaint ... ?> randomly splattered through the document. They don't even have to follow the tree structure, so where the heck is the parser supposed to attach them in the parse tree ?
What do they all have in common ? They're rarely used, come from SGML, and they make the XML model ugly and complicated. Some of this cruft like CDATA can be gotten rid of during parsing. Others (like nonstandard entities) are simply screwed up beyond any repair and we're better off ignoring the standard and doing some sort of the usually right thing heuristics. Oh, and by the way the new version of magic/xml is out there. It supports XML parsing using parser from REXML. The generation part is already fairly magical, and supports any mix of functional, object oriented and procedural styles of XML processing, so you can say:
node = { bar!("Hello"); bar!({:color => "blue"}, "world") }
to get a node equivalent to <foo><bar>Hello</bar><bar color="blue">world</bar></foo>. Enjoy :-)

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

From make to rake

Photo from Commons by Felipe Micaroni Lalli, CC-BY-SA.
rake is a Ruby equivalent of make and it's much more cool. Some problems with make:
  • It is almost standard but not quite - some systems like Solaris use some broken non-GNU make (you need to use gmake there, bah). And without GNU extensions it's really hard to do many useful things with it.
  • Complex Makefiles are very fragile, for example changing order of entries has highly unpredictable effects.
  • It's really hard to do any non-trivial processing with make. What one really does is writing scripts that generate Makefiles, and then the Makefiles call even other scripts. Having everything in a single Rakefile is much nicer.
  • With Rakefile I can program in Ruby. Perl or Python would also work great with this kind of programs. Shell definitely does not.
  • Embedding Perl/Ruby one-liners in Makefile really sucks. I need to escape extra characters to protect against make, then to protect against shell. In the end I simply move everything to a different file.
So here's how RLisp's Rakefile looks like:
# Build the package using ANTLR
task :default do
 system "java -classpath lib/antlr-2.7.5.jar:lib/antlr-3.0ea7.jar:lib/stringtemplate-2.3b4.jar org.antlr.Tool RLispGrammar.g"

# Build first if packaging is requested
task :package => :default do
 date_string ="%Y-%m-%d-%H-%M")
   antlr.rb RLispGrammar.g
   RLispGrammarLexer.rb RLispGrammar.rb
   rlisp.rb Rakefile
   rlisp_stdlib.rb stdlib.rl] +
   Dir.glob("examples/*.rl") +
   Dir.glob("examples/*.rb") +

 # Prepend rlisp/ and temporarily chdir out
 # That's the only way to work with tar
 files ={|f| "rlisp/#{f}"}
 Dir.chdir("..") {
   # Make a tarball
   system "tar", "-z", "-c", "-f", "rlisp/rlisp-#{date_string}.tar.gz", *files
   # and a zipball
   system "zip", "rlisp/rlisp-#{date_string}.zip", *files

# Cleaning up
task :clean do
 generated_files = %w[
 generated_files.each{|file| File.delete(file)}
The packaging is way more cool that the one I did with Makefile. So the plan is to port all my programs (mainly jrpg which has fairly complex make system) to Rakefile. Well at least those that aren't using OCamlMake or ant or something like that. Score for Ruby :-)

Ruby book sales pass Perl

Chart from O'Reilly
Normally I don't repost stories from other websites, but this one is just too cool to pass :-)

So basically Ruby book sales passed Perl, Python is far behind, and Javascript books are on the top, but are mostly about AJAX not actually programming in Javascript. It seems that Ruby is having huge momentum right now, as book sales indicate what people are learning now and therefore the technical trends for the next few years. So are we already getting there ?


Photo from Commons by Fabian Köster, GFDL.
The promised library for XML-oriented programming with Ruby got implemented :-) Most of the examples from my last post work. One cool technique I discovered during the coding is "duplicate and modify". It makes very pretty functional-style programming possible:
a =, {:a => "1"}, "Hello")
b = a.dup{ @name = :bar }
c = a.dup{ self[:a] = "2" }
d = a.dup{ self << ", world!" }
Basically the optional block given to dup is instance_evaled in context of the new object. I think this is general and cool enough that we can probably find a few uses for it in the standard library. Everything works Ruby way, so we can do things like:
include XHTML
a  ={:href => ""}, "Google")
a[:href] = ""
a << " Earth"
The library does not know how to parse XML (wow). It can only generate it, and output formatting is done by simply printing it. I'll take a look at XML-parsers later. It should be trivial to connect one. DTDs, XML namespaces, explicit entities (< > and the usual stuff gets auto-escaped, so don't worry) get a big meh. If they can be supported without making the common case more complicated, then I'm all for it. If not - you can always use some other library. Download is here. Unit tests and the blog are the only documentation for now.