Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > Where to start

Reply
Thread Tools

Where to start

 
 
Tolga C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
Hi all I am new to Ruby been trying to learn for a while but didn't get
a chance till now.

Here is my question:

I would like to create a application (not a web application) which will
run on linux machine.

What is the best application to create a ruby application with a GUI.
Where can I get 101 instructions or a cook book type of information on
Ruby and designing a GUI based ruby application.

Thank you,

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fabio Cevasco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
The easiest (and most pleasant to work with!) Ruby GUI toolkit is definitely=
Shoes:

http://shoesrb.com/

Check out the site and the docs, they are very easy to understand.

Shoes was used to build Hackety Hack, an app suitable to teach Ruby to kids (=
but quite fun for adults too):

http://hackety-hack.com/

Fabio Cevasco
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
www.H3RALD.com

On 1 Feb 2011, at 19:32, "Tolga C." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hi all I am new to Ruby been trying to learn for a while but didn't get
> a chance till now.
>=20
> Here is my question:
>=20
> I would like to create a application (not a web application) which will
> run on linux machine.
>=20
> What is the best application to create a ruby application with a GUI.
> Where can I get 101 instructions or a cook book type of information on
> Ruby and designing a GUI based ruby application.
>=20
> Thank you,
>=20
> --=20
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>=20


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Klabnik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

+1 for Shoes. I am a bit biased, being on Team Shoes, though.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Fabio Cevasco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
Steve: thanks for helping maintaining such an awesome toolkit.

I really can't wait until you can provide a proper gem. While Shoes is fine f=
or standalone applications, I'd like to be able to add a GUI to an existing p=
roject, without being 'tied' to Shoes' packaging black magic for distributio=
n.

I read you guys are planning a partial rewrite in pure ruby... I can't wait!=
I would like to contribute actually, I just don't know where to start and w=
hat you are looking for right now.

Fabio Cevasco
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
www.H3RALD.com

On 1 Feb 2011, at 20:49, Steve Klabnik <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> +1 for Shoes. I am a bit biased, being on Team Shoes, though.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Masover
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 02:40:17 pm Fabio Cevasco wrote:
> I really can't wait until you can provide a proper gem. While Shoes is fine
> for standalone applications, I'd like to be able to add a GUI to an
> existing project, without being 'tied' to Shoes' packaging black magic for
> distribution.


+1

I haven't considered Shoes in quite a long time because of precisely this
reason. I have several existing ways to deploy apps, and it'd be really nice
if Shoes could separate the GUI framework from the deployment system. (I
suppose the deployment system might depend on Shoes, but I see no reason it
should be the other way around.)

Monkeybars seems _slightly_ less bound to Rawr -- hey, at least I can make a
rawr app without Monkeybars -- but I'd still much rather have it entirely
separate, so Ruby people can install my app as a gem.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Klabnik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

David, right now, they're 100% intertwined. That's the way that _why liked
it. Not only that, it's actually pretty integral to how Shoes works. It's
largely C code that exposes a Ruby that's slightly different...
http://shoesrb.com/manual/Rules.html see "Shoes tricky blocks"

Fabio, we'd love to have some contribution. Contact me off-list and I'd love
to have your help.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Masover
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 05:42:42 pm Steve Klabnik wrote:
> David, right now, they're 100% intertwined. That's the way that _why liked
> it.


Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you'll pardon the pun.

> Not only that, it's actually pretty integral to how Shoes works. It's
> largely C code that exposes a Ruby that's slightly different...
> http://shoesrb.com/manual/Rules.html see "Shoes tricky blocks"


My first impression is, those don't look terribly tricky, at least as far as
implementation. self is changed via instance_eval. The "trick" of redirecting
drawing seems like an implementation detail, not of the language, but of
whatever classes you use to implement the DSL.

Scrolling down, the only thing I see that looks tricky at all is the UTF-8
support, and you'd think it would make sense to just use the Unicode support
that's built into 1.9, rather than having an entirely different version of
your own. In fact, it seems like this would cause a lot of problems for gems
I'd want to use _in_ a Shoes app.

If there's something I'm missing that absolutely has to modify the language in
C, is there a reason it couldn't be implemented as an extension and scoped to
Shoes?

I don't mean to imply that the work involved would be trivial. I have
absolutely no idea how much work it would be. I just don't see any major
blockers here -- I really don't see a good reason why Shoes should carry its
own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits, application
frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Klabnik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

>
> Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you'll pardon the pun.



First of all, a disclaimer: I never met or talked to _why. So I can't really
fully represent what his wishes were. That being said, you have to remember
where Shoes came from: Hackety Hack. Hackety needs to have everything that
it needs to function wrapped up inside of it: _why didn't want anyone to
have to download anything else to get it working.


> I don't mean to imply that the work involved would be trivial. I have


absolutely no idea how much work it would be.


Honestly, I can't think of anything in Shoes that would make it 100%
necessary. But the effort to convert everything over would certainly be
non-trivial.


> I just don't see any major
> blockers here -- I really don't see a good reason why Shoes should carry
> its
> own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits,
> application
> frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.
>


_why always referred to Shoes as an 'app toolkit.' He saw it as a different
thing. And Hackety needs it to be that way.

That said, we _are_ working on a pure Ruby Shoes, and it'll end up being the
future of Shoes. That said, it's going to be a bit still, and we'll still
have to work on getting the packaging system fully operational as well.

All in good time.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Masover
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:41:07 am Steve Klabnik wrote:
> > Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you'll pardon the pun.

>
> First of all, a disclaimer: I never met or talked to _why. So I can't
> really fully represent what his wishes were. That being said, you have to
> remember where Shoes came from: Hackety Hack. Hackety needs to have
> everything that it needs to function wrapped up inside of it: _why didn't
> want anyone to have to download anything else to get it working.


That sounds like a problem for something like rawr. As far as I can tell, it's
possible to have a rawr app which doesn't use monkeybars, and vice versa.

> > I just don't see any major
> > blockers here -- I really don't see a good reason why Shoes should carry
> > its
> > own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits,
> > application
> > frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.

>
> _why always referred to Shoes as an 'app toolkit.' He saw it as a different
> thing. And Hackety needs it to be that way.


None of which seems to contradict what you said here:

> That said, we _are_ working on a pure Ruby Shoes,


Hackity doesn't need Shoes as a whole to be that way, it just needs _some_
sort of "app toolkit" -- again, something like rawr, though maybe rawr itself
isn't appropriate. I can see why such an "app toolkit" might be tightly bound
to a GUI toolkit, but I see no reason it should be the other way around.

I don't think we actually disagree here.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Klabnik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

>
> I don't think we actually disagree here.
>


Totally. Just explaining why things are the way that they are, and why they
aren't different yet.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Set Start URL with project Start Page (Visual Studio) Jon Davis ASP .Net 0 11-14-2006 08:23 PM
Start Web services as Windows Services start Anup ASP .Net 1 05-09-2006 11:44 AM
My mouse Hangs when I start my computer and then start Firefox booddhhoo Computer Support 3 03-12-2006 05:38 PM
PROCESS.START Help - Need to start app that listens on a port Lucas Tam ASP .Net 0 06-17-2005 02:09 PM
Specify start and length, beside start and end, in slices Noam Raphael Python 17 05-26-2004 09:30 PM



Advertisments