[#6954] Why isn't Perl highly orthogonal? — Terrence Brannon <brannon@...>

27 messages 2000/12/09

[#7022] Re: Ruby in the US — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...>

> Is it possible for the US to develop corporate

36 messages 2000/12/11
[#7633] Re: Ruby in the US — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/19

tonys@myspleenklug.on.ca (tony summerfelt) writes:

[#7636] Re: Ruby in the US — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/19

[#7704] Re: Ruby in the US — Jilani Khaldi <jilanik@...> 2000/12/19

> > first candidates would be mysql and postgressql because source is

[#7705] Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/19

During an idle chat with someone on IRC, they presented some fairly

[#7750] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

Stephen White wrote:

[#7751] Re: Code sample for improvement — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

Hello --

[#7755] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

David Alan Black wrote:

[#7758] Re: Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Guy N. Hurst wrote:

[#7759] Next amusing problem: talking integers (was Re: Code sample for improvement) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7212] New User Survey: we need your opinions — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/12/14

[#7330] A Java Developer's Wish List for Ruby — "Richard A.Schulman" <RichardASchulman@...>

I see Ruby as having a very bright future as a language to

22 messages 2000/12/15

[#7354] Ruby performance question — Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@...>

I'm parsing simple text lines which look like this:

21 messages 2000/12/15
[#7361] Re: Ruby performance question — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/15

Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@worldnet.att.net> writes:

[#7367] Re: Ruby performance question — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/16

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7371] Re: Ruby performance question — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/16

[#7366] GUIs for Rubies — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Thought I'd switch the subject line to the subject at hand.

22 messages 2000/12/16

[#7416] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Kevin Smith <kevins14@...>

>> >> I would contribute to this project, if it

17 messages 2000/12/16
[#7422] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Holden Glova <dsafari@...> 2000/12/16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#7582] New to Ruby — takaoueda@...

I have just started learning Ruby with the book of Thomas and Hunt. The

24 messages 2000/12/18

[#7604] Any corrections for Programming Ruby — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

12 messages 2000/12/18

[#7737] strange border-case Numeric errors — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>

I haven't had a good enough chance to familiarize myself with the code in

19 messages 2000/12/20

[#7801] Is Ruby part of any standard GNU Linux distributions? — "Pete McBreen, McBreen.Consulting" <mcbreenp@...>

Anybody know what it would take to get Ruby into the standard GNU Linux

15 messages 2000/12/20

[#7938] Re: defined? problem? — Kevin Smith <sent@...>

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:

26 messages 2000/12/22
[#7943] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

Kevin Smith <sent@qualitycode.com> writes:

[#7950] Re: defined? problem? — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7951] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7954] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:

[#7975] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

Hello --

[#7971] Hash access method — Ted Meng <ted_meng@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2000/12/22

[#8030] Re: Basic hash question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "B" == Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@hotmail.com> writes:

15 messages 2000/12/24
[#8033] Re: Basic hash question — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2000/12/24

On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, ts wrote:

[#8178] Inexplicable core dump — "Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott@...>

I have some code that looks like this:

12 messages 2000/12/28

[#8196] My first impression of Ruby. Lack of overloading? (long) — jmichel@... (Jean Michel)

Hello,

23 messages 2000/12/28

[#8198] Re: Ruby cron scheduler for NT available — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

John Small wrote:

14 messages 2000/12/28

[#8287] Re: speedup of anagram finder — "SHULTZ,BARRY (HP-Israel,ex1)" <barry_shultz@...>

> -----Original Message-----

12 messages 2000/12/29

[ruby-talk:7366] GUIs for Rubies

From: "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>
Date: 2000-12-16 01:01:21 UTC
List: ruby-talk #7366
Thought I'd switch the subject line to the subject at hand.

Some summary observations on recent discussions....

The Mozilla stuff looks like it would involve C++ interface code, which 
tends to be more troublesome to support on many systems, relative to plain 
old C. (This is one of the drawbacks to wxWindows.) 

Mozilla's XPFE is still a work in progress. End-user documentation seems 
scarce. (I haven't done an exhaustive search however.) As yet, there is 
not a track record of successful use by Perl and Python--not that we 
should blindly follow them, but as a smaller community with fewer total 
resources at our disposal, we should think twice about being on the 
bleeding edge.

It seems that many Ruby extension developers apparently don't like dealing 
with C++, meaning thinner support and backup resources if we went with 
things like Mozilla, wxWindows, or gtk--.

GTK+ is pure C, and some substantial fraction of Ruby/GTK+ is *already* 
*done*. And there are already a couple of *books* on GTK+ programming. And 
there is a pretty nice open source GUI-based GUI builder available for it 
(i.e. Glade), unlike the one for wxWindows, which is proprietary.

In addition to Linux, cross-platform support for GTK+ seems tolerably good 
on Windows, and pretty good on major Unix systems. (This condition will 
probably rapidly generalize to the new "UNIX-Mac"--if this hasn't already 
happened.)

None of the GUI options will support as many platforms as Tk, so there 
will be some trade-off of platform range versus GUI capabilities versus 
existing scale of GUI developer community size. What would be best for 
some small percentage of Ruby users on relatively rare (%-wise) platforms 
could considerably disadvantage the great majority of Ruby users on the 
commonest platforms. I think Windows-only or Linux-only or Unix-only 
solutions are each out of the question, but the union of these is probably 
not too far from the sort of quasi-optimal trade-off region that would be 
the best for greatly boosting Ruby's suitability as a heavy hitter, 
GUI-wise (as measured by the maximum potential market for increased Ruby 
usage).

So, for Dave's proposed purpose of closure-seeking, I (provisionally) 
think GTK+ would be the best choice for the time being (relative to all of 
the above considerations). I think that we also want something that (1) is 
already in fairly widespread use and that (2) already has published 
documentation (i.e. books, althought of course we will want to produce 
Ruby/* documentation for whatever choice we make). Because of the previous 
work that has already been done on GTK+, this is one of the least 
resource-intensive and thus fast-to-market GUI solutions as well. 

(I think that we will probably eventually want to support Mozilla a couple 
of years down the road, when it is much more mature, and when we have much 
more resources available to deal with it. However, I think GTK+ will 
remain very viable for many years to come, and will probably remain a 
richer GUI environment.)

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)

In This Thread

Prev Next