From: Robert Klemme Date: 2012-05-22T00:49:09+09:00 Subject: Re: ruby in a box On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Martin DeMello wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Robert Klemme > wrote: >> >> There's also a "lightweight" variant: >> >> 1. any text editor with syntax highlighting and code indention for >> Ruby (gvim?) - maybe there's also a standalone code formatter. >> >> 2. IRB, pry >> >> 3. Terminal >> >> 4. ri > > Have you used drracket? No. > It's *really* pleasant to have everything > integrated and working together, particularly when you're learning. I > think it would be a nice experience to bring to the ruby world. On one hand I agree. On the other hand I'm grumpy today and think editor and command line aren't too bad even though it's a bit more effort. Maybe I'm also old fashioned and believe that things are better remembered if you need to work harder for them. :-) >> I do not know how good this works on Windows since I only use self >> compiled Ruby on cygwin. > > The windows CMD terminal is pretty painful to use (I'm not sure if > anything better ships with more modern versions of windows). That's why I use cygwin. :-) >> Right, it might reduce the learning curve.  But wouldn't it then also >> need features to easily built graphical user interfaces? > > I thought about that, but I'd say building GUIs is, at least in the > ruby world, a fairly advanced thing to do. Also, for some reason, > there just doesn't seem to be a large community of people developing > gui desktop apps in ruby. On the other hand, there are *lots* of other > areas where ruby is a very heavily-used and useful tool, both in the > console-based data processing and automation, and in webapps. It would > probably be a greater bang for the buck to include a sinatra + webrick > quickstart plugin. Good point! >>> * Should it be written in ruby? >> >> It could as well be written in HTML - meaning: proper documentation. >> The benefit would be that people get along on more different systems >> (i.e. without the overhead of installing an IDE and even without a >> graphical UI at all).  It might be a bit more rough than a single >> installer which throws everything (Ruby, IDE...) on the system.  But >> then again, if it's software, maintenance efforts are higher. > > Yeah, that's true, but it could also be more useful if done right. Absolutely. Kind regards robert PS: Sorry for the grumpiness. -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/