[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Ruby has a Face that it wears on its feet

Jayson Williams

11/5/2008 7:18:00 PM

In my opinion, Ruby's official face should be Shoes. Shoes gives Ruby
a face by adding a simple GUI toolkit. I have been an advocate for Tk
for as long as I have been using Ruby, because of its ease at picking
up for new users. But Shoes makes Tk look like brain surgery. Shoes is
probably more like a baby face for Ruby. Better suited for small
applications that don't require an overly complex GUI. If your looking
at adding a simple face to your Ruby applications, have a look at
Shoes.
Oooh.. and Shoes allows you to build standalone executable apps too.
Have a look and let me know what you think.

~Jay
16 Answers

William James

11/5/2008 9:12:00 PM

0

On Nov 5, 1:17 pm, Jayson Williams

> If your looking

you're

> at adding a simple face to your Ruby applications,

Jayson Williams

11/5/2008 9:28:00 PM

0

Fast fingers
Thanks

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:14 PM, William James <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 1:17 pm, Jayson Williams
>
>> If your looking
>
> you're
>
>> at adding a simple face to your Ruby applications,
>
>

Martin DeMello

11/5/2008 9:38:00 PM

0

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Jayson Williams
<williams.jayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my opinion, Ruby's official face should be Shoes. Shoes gives Ruby
> a face by adding a simple GUI toolkit. I have been an advocate for Tk
> for as long as I have been using Ruby, because of its ease at picking
> up for new users. But Shoes makes Tk look like brain surgery. Shoes is
> probably more like a baby face for Ruby. Better suited for small
> applications that don't require an overly complex GUI. If your looking
> at adding a simple face to your Ruby applications, have a look at
> Shoes.
> Oooh.. and Shoes allows you to build standalone executable apps too.
> Have a look and let me know what you think.

Much as I love Shoes, there is a severe problem with adding it to the
official ruby distro - it is not a ruby library, but a self-contained
executable complete with forked ruby interpreter. You need to run
programs with `shoes <progname>`, rather than `ruby <progname>`

martin

Jayson Williams

11/5/2008 9:47:00 PM

0

How about a melding of the two?

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Jayson Williams
> <williams.jayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my opinion, Ruby's official face should be Shoes. Shoes gives Ruby
>> a face by adding a simple GUI toolkit. I have been an advocate for Tk
>> for as long as I have been using Ruby, because of its ease at picking
>> up for new users. But Shoes makes Tk look like brain surgery. Shoes is
>> probably more like a baby face for Ruby. Better suited for small
>> applications that don't require an overly complex GUI. If your looking
>> at adding a simple face to your Ruby applications, have a look at
>> Shoes.
>> Oooh.. and Shoes allows you to build standalone executable apps too.
>> Have a look and let me know what you think.
>
> Much as I love Shoes, there is a severe problem with adding it to the
> official ruby distro - it is not a ruby library, but a self-contained
> executable complete with forked ruby interpreter. You need to run
> programs with `shoes <progname>`, rather than `ruby <progname>`
>
> martin
>
>

Kyle Hunter

11/6/2008 1:10:00 AM

0

Jayson Williams wrote:
> How about a melding of the two?

Giving shoes an official place in the Ruby language hierarchy would open
up a new world for desktop application programming for Ruby.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

James Britt

11/6/2008 5:03:00 AM

0

Kyle Hunter wrote:
> Jayson Williams wrote:
>> How about a melding of the two?
>
> Giving shoes an official place in the Ruby language hierarchy would open
> up a new world for desktop application programming for Ruby.

JRuby does that quite well.



--
James Britt

www.happycamperstudios.com - Wicked Cool Coding
www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff

Farrel Lifson

11/6/2008 7:48:00 AM

0

2008/11/6 James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com>:
> Kyle Hunter wrote:
>>
>> Jayson Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a melding of the two?
>>
>> Giving shoes an official place in the Ruby language hierarchy would open
>> up a new world for desktop application programming for Ruby.
>
> JRuby does that quite well.

And so does Glade+Ruby/GNOME2

Farrel
--
Aimred - Ruby Development and Consulting
http://www....

Ron Fox

11/6/2008 10:50:00 AM

0

This is how Tk started in Tcl. First it was a 'special interpreter'
wish. Now it's a package that any Tcl script can include with
package require Tk

That could be a model to follow.
RF
Martin DeMello wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Jayson Williams
> <williams.jayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my opinion, Ruby's official face should be Shoes. Shoes gives Ruby
>> a face by adding a simple GUI toolkit. I have been an advocate for Tk
>> for as long as I have been using Ruby, because of its ease at picking
>> up for new users. But Shoes makes Tk look like brain surgery. Shoes is
>> probably more like a baby face for Ruby. Better suited for small
>> applications that don't require an overly complex GUI. If your looking
>> at adding a simple face to your Ruby applications, have a look at
>> Shoes.
>> Oooh.. and Shoes allows you to build standalone executable apps too.
>> Have a look and let me know what you think.
>
> Much as I love Shoes, there is a severe problem with adding it to the
> official ruby distro - it is not a ruby library, but a self-contained
> executable complete with forked ruby interpreter. You need to run
> programs with `shoes <progname>`, rather than `ruby <progname>`
>
> martin
>


--
Ron Fox
NSCL
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1321

Di Da

11/6/2008 11:27:00 AM

0

> In my opinion, Ruby's official face should be Shoes.

tk is available on many plattforms and has comparable low requirements.
I would assume it's a standard library because it's readily available
not because it's beautiful or whatever.

The shoes' source files come with a simple Makefile, one configuration
option, and it doesn't compile eg on cygwin. It might be a fascinating
library but IMHO there is still some way to go before we can call it the
"official face".
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Lloyd Linklater

11/6/2008 2:37:00 PM

0

Kyle Hunter wrote:
> Jayson Williams wrote:
>> How about a melding of the two?
>
> Giving shoes an official place in the Ruby language hierarchy would open
> up a new world for desktop application programming for Ruby.

That would not be appropriate. Ruby is a language. Making a specific
gui library part of the language would be mixing things that should not
be mixed *on that level*.

That said, I *would* like a development environment that includes
standardized gui libraries, and shoes seems fine.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....