[#1649] Re: New Ruby projects — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1672] Re: Ruby 1.4 stable manual bug? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
[#1673] Re: Possible problem with ext/socket in 1.5.2 — itojun@...
[#1694] Conventions for our Ruby book — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
[#1715] Install postgresql support — Ikhlasul Amal <amal@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
[#1786] Is this a bug? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
(mailed & posted)
[#1814] Objects nested sometimes. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I am attemptiong to write a package which consists of a workspace
[#1816] Ruby 1.5.3 under Tru64 (Alpha)? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>
Hi all,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:
Hi,
Hi,
[#1834] enum examples? — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examplse of using the Enumerable module? I've had a
[#1844] Minor irritation, can't figure out how to patch it though! — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
I was considering how difficult it would be to patch Ruby to accept
[#1889] [ruby-1.5.3] require / SAFE — ts <decoux@...>
[#1896] Ruby Syntax similar to other languages? — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@netlab.co.jp>
[#1900] Enumerations and all that. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Thank you to the people who responded to my questions about Enumerated
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:
On 16 Mar 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:
[#1929] Re: Class Variables — "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@...>
| "David Douthitt" <DDouthitt@cuna.com> writes:
[#1942] no Fixnum#new ? — Quinn Dunkan <quinn@...>
Ok, I can add methods to a built-in class well enough (yes I know about succ,
[#1989] English Ruby/Gtk Tutorial? — schneik@...
Hi,
[#2022] rb_global_entry — ts <decoux@...>
[#2036] Anonymous and Singleton Classes — B_DAVISON <Bob.Davison@...>
I am a Ruby newbie and having some problems getting my mind around certain
[#2069] Ruby/GTK+ question about imlib --> gdk-pixbug — schneik@...
[#2073] Re: eval.rb fails — "Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@...>
The doc is fine, this happens only if you try to execute 'until' block
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Dat Nguyen wrote:
[#2084] Scope violated by import via 'require'? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>
Hi,
[#2104] ARGF or $< — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Has anyone any examples of how to use ARGF or $< as I cannot find much
Hi.
[#2165] Ruby strict mode and stand-alone executables. — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>
Some people want Ruby to have a strict compile mode.
[#2203] Re: parse bug in 1.5 — schneik@...
[#2212] Re: Ruby/Glade usage questions. — ts <decoux@...>
>>>>> "m" == mrilu <mrilu@ale.cx> writes:
[#2241] setter() for local variables — ts <decoux@...>
[#2256] Multiple assignment of pattern match results. — schneik@...
[#2267] Re: Ruby and Eiffel — h.fulton@...
[#2309] Question about attribute writers — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@gmx.net> writes:
[ruby-talk:01651] Re: New Ruby projects
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to comp.lang.misc as well. Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@netlab.co.jp> writes: > And I think the market, not me, will decide which GUI toolkit should > be the default, iff there can be the *market* of free software. > > Anyway, I really want to see Ruby/wxWindows working. A new > library/toolkit is always welcome. I'm slightly concerned about this. I think it is great that we give developers a wide choice of GUI toolkits. However, from the user's perspective, it means that they could have three Ruby applications that require that they download and install three separate (and large) packages before those applications run. While this is not the language's fault, it's still the kind of thing that can give a language a bad name. So... do you supposed it would be possible to define a common GUI interface for simple Ruby programs, one that would map onto Gtk, Tcl/tk, and wx. It would obviously be a lowest-common denominator interface, but for many simple applications, that would be enough. This would then give the user the ability to choose, even at run time, which particular toolkit to use. Developers who _need_ the power of (say) Gtk would still be free to use its native interface, and their applications would require Gtk support to run. But, for the rest, the user need only download and install one toolkit, and our wrapper would take care of the rest. This would be a kind of DBD/DBI for GUIs. Is this too ambitious? Dave