From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2004-03-18T22:18:40-08:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and Mozilla

--ZqRzwd/9tauJXEMK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sean Russell (ser@germane-software.com) wrote:

> paul vudmaska <paul@vudmaska.com> wrote in message news:<4059CE42.7090702=
@vudmaska.com>...
> > On the other hand, using js for this has never struck
> > me as needing to be rubied.
>=20
> Javascript scales really poorly, so restricting the application code
> to Javascript means that XUL will always be marginalized.  Ruby scales
> much, much better, so having a Ruby interpreter replacement for
> Javascript would benefit Mozilla nearly as much as being able to write
> GUIs in XUL would benefit Ruby.

Will Ruby really have that much benefit over Javascript?  I don't know
of any performance benchmarks for Mozilla's Javascript implementation,
but any of the pieces of Mozilla that are too slow end up rewritten in
C++.

How much more of an app could be written in Ruby compared to Javascript,
before you lose the speed necessary?

Additionally, since much of the lower levels of Mozilla are already
written in C++, will Ruby give that much gain?

PS: After writing several extensions for Mozilla using Javascript and
XUL, I find Javascript's prototype-OO model rather pleasant to work
with.  But writing XUL/Ruby apps would still be much, much cooler :)

--=20
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
All messages signed with fingerprint:
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E  7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04


--ZqRzwd/9tauJXEMK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAWpDAMypVHHlsnwQRAtkwAJ0V4kRmz2xcVBmRLeEdxt+wuLYX2gCguQgX
uLlZplmBbHgoJ7GDJ2CaoEo=
=1duG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZqRzwd/9tauJXEMK--