From: Joseph Lenton Date: 2011-01-17T20:20:10+09:00 Subject: Re: Why Quby? (was Re: What are your ruby rough cuts ?) Charles Nutter wrote in post #975363: > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, David Masover > wrote: >>> > things >>> > I actually feel are broken about Ruby as it is today. >>> >>> I'm sorry to take this slightly off topic, but I just can't let this >>> comment pass. I am currently building a language called Quby, which is a >>> very Ruby-like language, that runs 100% in the browser (about 4,000 >>> lines of JS). There are differences (as it's Ruby-like not Ruby) with >>> the main one being that it's tied to a canvas. But AFAIK it's the >>> closest pure JS implementation of Ruby (although it's Quby, not Ruby). > > I have to ask...does an applet not give you what you want? JRuby does > run fine in an applet, and with recent improvements to the Java > browser plugin it can do anything a Flash or other language plugin can > do (traverse and manipulate DOM, etc). > > - Charlie That hadn't occurred to me, and would be the best option for getting Ruby running in a browser. However it wouldn't work well for my particular site. I've built lots of applets in the past and although they can work they are far from being as reliable as Flash or HTML 5. Java penetration is still pretty bad, only about 60% of users have Java 6 which is over now over 5 years old. No potential for ever targeting mobile devices. Lots of netbook OSs ship with Java, like ChromeOS. Start up time is still terrible (especially on low-end machines). Finally there are lots of smaller issues like caching bugs and differences in the implementation; I've seen several sites that host applets saying underneath "if it doesn't appear then try reloading" (you shouldn't need to have to write that). David Masover wrote in post #975355: > On Sunday, January 16, 2011 07:33:04 am Joseph Lenton wrote: >> > >> > There are two major issues I have with that: >> > >> > First, why did you feel the need to fork Ruby syntax? I think I saw your >> > post >> > earlier, and I remember writing a long rant and then not sending it, but >> > that's really my main problem with it. Why create a new programming >> > language? >> >> First lots of small things I don't such as nil, hash comments and Ruby's >> block comments. > > This is _exactly_ what I'm talking about. I already know how to write > Ruby > with things like nil and hash comments. I don't see why I should have to > learn > an entirely new syntax, and teach my editor an entirely new syntax, for > such > trivialities as replacing nil with null. > > This just shouldn't factor into it. It's not entirely new syntax, it's mostly the same (or very similar). But that's a fair point as on the surface it does look like "change for the sake of change". I'd argue far more people have heard of null rather then nil, I bet more languages use C style single-line comments over hash comments, and Ruby block comments are really ugly and almost unusable. So I have changed items for common well known syntax rather then just random stuff. I also really do prefer these changes and believe that language designers should build languages they would enjoy writing (hence why it's also heavily influenced by Ruby). So that's ultimately why I went with them. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.