From: Kevin Brown <blargity@...>
Date: 2005-12-08T16:48:57+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyScript

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 20:11, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
> On Thursday 08 December 2005 09:13 am, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> > Well, I think that's what the OP was referring to, whether any
> > browsers supported it "Out of the Box". While RubyScript is cool and
> > great, it's not very useful for a public site if you have to hope the
> > users have installed the plugin first.
> >
> > What we need, rather -- since we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript
> > as the defacto standard -- is to continue to publicize the libraries
> > like Prototype that make working with JavaScript much more palatable
> > and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
>
> I disagree with being stuck with javascript. People are stuck with
> javascript as a programmer stuck to php. You have a choice, and you need to
> force a user to install it. Wide usage will get more attention. If you also
> look at the Mozilla project, they are embedded Python stubs in for the next
> milestone so it will be easy to use XUL+Python. I really would want this to
> be XUL+Ruby though.
>
> Tsume

There is a difference though.  PHP is server side, so migrating away from it 
only forces installation ONCE on the server side.  Migrating away from Java 
Script involves forcing every single client to install X.  While that draws 
attention, most users simply won't bother, or will attempt to get the 
information via some other means.  This is bad for especially commercial web 
apps.