# Does Ruby generate WINDOWS and dialog boxes? **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [16 December 2006 20:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789 "2006-12-16T20:10:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ken\_Laninga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3da27b/32.png) [@Ken\_Laninga](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ken_Laninga)\ **Post date:** [16 December 2006 20:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/1 "2006-12-16T20:10:16Z")
I just heard about Ruby and it looks fascinating. I see lots of code being discussed but I see no mention of the actual windows and input/output boxes/windows which it may or may not produce. Does it make windows? > **···** > > -- > > \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* > [http://www.sticksite.com/](http://www.sticksite.com/) Ken Laninga ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vallner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@David\_Vallner](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vallner)\ **Post date:** [16 December 2006 20:38 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/2 "2006-12-16T20:38:29Z")
Ken Laninga wrote: > I just heard about Ruby and it looks fascinating. I see lots of code being > discussed but I see no mention of the actual windows and input/output > boxes/windows which it may or may not produce. > > Does it make windows? Oi, this might get bloody. Firstly, not all programming involves graphical user interfaces (windows / dialogs; I'll just use GUI onwards). But, here goes. For Ruby (and most anything that isn't Visual Basic), GUI is a thing that is handled in a library. (Mostly because Ruby aims to be a crossplatform language, and trying to handle GUIs crossplatform is finicky and would probably end in tragedy if tried.) As far as I'm aware, Ruby doesn't include a GUI library in the standard library. However, such libraries are available. I'll audaciously presume your background to be Windows. In this case, you can either do raw Win32 API callouts (even if it might be slightly maddening.), which is part of the standard Windows distribution. Also, if you're using the One Click Installer (which you should, since it's by far the Path Least Annoying), you will get both VisualuRuby (a Windows-only higher-level wrapper around the GUI calls, aims to look VB-like from the programming point of view in the vruby variant), and FOX (a synthethic crossplatform toolkit with probably more bells and whistles than VisualuRuby, but you have to bear with what I consider ugly-looking results - YMMV). If those don't work for you, there's always Gtk, so far the only GUI library I can recall that comes with prebuilt Windows bindings mature enough I would consider usable outside personal code. Gtk visual quality and native veracity has improved from a sorry status recently, but is still lacking in a few areas if you have pet peeves. (Like I do, specifically non-native file choosers.) I do have hopes for the wxWidgets binding maturing, and a prebuilt Qt4 one appearing though, those two toolkits are the ones I prefer - wx for nigh-on-perfect native veracity, Qt4 for Designer, Linguist, Assistant, and the whole shebang, and the API style. (Which is very friendly to metaprogramming.) I currently use the latter from its Python binding (both wx and Qt4 have well-maintained and uptodate Python bindings), so if you want to get something done, as opposed to poking around specifically Ruby, you might try The Other Language. David Vallner ---
**Author:** ![Richard3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b5a626/32.png) [@Richard3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Richard3)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 03:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/3 "2006-12-17T03:10:08Z")
Ken Laninga wrote: > I just heard about Ruby and it looks fascinating. I see lots of code being > discussed but I see no mention of the actual windows and input/output > boxes/windows which it may or may not produce. > > Does it make windows? > > -- > > \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* > [http://www.sticksite.com/](http://www.sticksite.com/) Ken Laninga I'm planning to implement desk-top applications the same way I'm implementing websites: use Ruby on Rails. That gives me essentially one cross-platform application environment. Is there something wrong with that plan? > **···** > > --- > Richard ---
**Author:** ![Joel\_VanderWerf1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/94ad74/32.png) [@Joel\_VanderWerf1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Joel_VanderWerf1)\ **Post date:** [16 December 2006 22:08 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/4 "2006-12-16T22:08:15Z")
David Vallner wrote: ... > As far as I'm aware, Ruby doesn't include a GUI library in the standard > library. Tk is in the standard library. Don't laugh, it can be useful! 🙂 I'm using the Tk canvas for some easy-to-set-up animations that don't really need opengl. > **···** > > -- >        vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vallner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@David\_Vallner](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vallner)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 03:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/5 "2006-12-17T03:29:13Z")
Richard wrote: > Ken Laninga wrote: > > > I just heard about Ruby and it looks fascinating. I see lots of code being > > discussed but I see no mention of the actual windows and input/output > > boxes/windows which it may or may not produce. > > > > Does it make windows? > > > > -- > > > > \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* > > [http://www.sticksite.com/](http://www.sticksite.com/) Ken Laninga > > I'm planning to implement desk-top applications the same way I'm > implementing websites: use Ruby on Rails. That gives me essentially > one cross-platform application environment. Is there something wrong > with that plan? > --- > Richard How would that be a desktop application? Or, in slightly other words, do you have an architecture to go with that plan? David Vallner ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vallner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@David\_Vallner](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vallner)\ **Post date:** [16 December 2006 22:34 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/6 "2006-12-16T22:34:12Z")
Joel VanderWerf wrote: > David Vallner wrote: > ... > > > As far as I'm aware, Ruby doesn't include a GUI library in the standard > > library. > > Tk is in the standard library. Don't laugh, it can be useful! 🙂 Wooer. I subconsciously ignore Tk by now. Go me. Or something. /me puts on a dunce hat. David Vallner ---
**Author:** ![Suraj\_Kurapati1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@Suraj\_Kurapati1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Suraj_Kurapati1)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 01:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/7 "2006-12-17T01:09:57Z")
Joel VanderWerf wrote: > David Vallner wrote: > ... > > > As far as I'm aware, Ruby doesn't include a GUI library in the standard > > library. > > Tk is in the standard library. Don't laugh, it can be useful! 🙂 > > I'm using the Tk canvas for some easy-to-set-up animations that don't > really need opengl. Tk is wonderful! It's really simple to manipulate widgets and graphics in the way you'd expect. IMHO, Tk is the Ruby of GUI toolkits. I don't know why people hate it so much. They seem to prefer "desktop integration" and eye-candy instead of clean, functional interfaces. Sigh. ☹ > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Richard3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b5a626/32.png) [@Richard3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Richard3)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 04:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/8 "2006-12-17T04:25:08Z")
David Vallner wrote: > How would that be a desktop application? To us programmers it would be a web app with a local server, but to the user it would be indistinguishable from, say, an application built with Visual C++ and Microsoft Foundation Classes running on a Windows OS. Does that make sense to you? > **···** > > --- > Richard ---
**Author:** ![M\_Edward\_Ed\_Borasky1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9c0ed/32.png) [@M\_Edward\_Ed\_Borasky1](https://rubytalk.org/u/M_Edward_Ed_Borasky1)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 02:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/9 "2006-12-17T02:44:13Z")
Quoting Suraj Kurapati \: > Tk is wonderful! It's really simple to manipulate widgets and graphics > in the way you'd expect. IMHO, Tk is the Ruby of GUI toolkits. > > I don't know why people hate it so much. They seem to prefer "desktop > integration" and eye-candy instead of clean, functional interfaces. > Sigh. ☹ I don't actually \*hate\* Tk -- I just never learned how to use it, and I think its widgets are ugly relative to, say, Qt. Now Tcl, on the other hand -- that I \*do\* hate. 🙂 It was the first scripting language, but I find Tcl code virtually unreadable. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vallner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@David\_Vallner](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vallner)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 03:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/10 "2006-12-17T03:56:08Z")
Suraj Kurapati wrote: > I don't know why people hate it so much. They seem to prefer "desktop > integration" and eye-candy instead of clean, functional interfaces. > Sigh. ☹ Some of us have to "sell" software, at least to managers - then it matters. [Hide the women, children and livestock. This just got bloody as I predicted.] Also, you're missing the point. It's a GUI, noone really gives a damn if the programmer had an easier time coding it if there's hundreds of users that will feel constantly alienated by it because of some detail the programmer didn't feel like bothering with. User interface design isn't the same as programming a user interface. Programmers, especially the lazy sort, tend to suck, suck-oh-so-horribly at user interface design. Approaching user interface design with a programmer's mindset can only end in pain, tragedy, and Tk. Also, you're confusing internal UI consistency, and external UI consistency. Internal UI consistency is when the features of the UI fit together to make working with the software alone productive (your clean and functional). External consistency is when the UI incorporates features that make working with that software in connection with other software on the computer productive. This means panels will scroll when the mouse is over them and won't require clicking on the buttons. This means that the file chooser, on XP, will have a "My Documents" button as the third one in a button sidepanel on the left. (I can't describe the rage I feel when a toolkit opens a file chooser that doesn't even try to look alike and leaves me flailing about trying to find my way back home.) I've seen Tk interfaces fail at all the above when they're capabilities the damn system below them gets right out of the box, and I've no doubt that's barely the tip of the iceberg. Both internal and external consistency are, for pretty much most applications, factors that contribute to productivity. Having an externally consistent program in no way excludes it being internally consistent, so no point in setting up that straw man. Any GUI toolkit will let you achieve internal consistency, and getting really good usability from a GUI is 1% toolkit choice, 99% blood and sweat. (My favourite GUI programs in terms of UI usability, and consequently the ones I use most are firstly Opera, written in nothing publically known for Windows, Qt3 for Linux, and IntelliJ IDEA, based on the by-default-horrid Swing it makes sing and dance.) However, the mindset of most Tk users seems to be to fight achieving external consistency kicking and screaming and inventing nonarguments to prove such patent nonsense as external consistence being undesirable. (That's usually laziness, youthful zealotry, incompetence, or short time budget speaking. Prove me wrong.) Also, to set you right. People, or at least I (the only part of "people" I can confidently speak for - for what part were you speaking and with how much confidence when you used the words "people" and "they" again? - obviously not yourself), don't just prefer eye candy. I want usable interfaces that do what I need, do what I want, and do even what I didn't know I wanted, and pay close attention now, that \*also\* look good, look native-or-better (Java 6 giving me subpixel font AA on Windows 2000 machines at work or under uncooperative Linux window managers), act native-or-better (cf. some Windows programs that emulate "scroll widget under cursor"). Both. And. No. Less. I am willing to and have paid money to get that, and when forced to make a choice, there will be something pissing me off with either alternative making me wrestle lossage of some sort. (PS: Just writing desktop integration in quotes doesn't make it of no value. Refer to the missing the point by leagues bit above.) Oh, and to make my position fully clear, I do hate Tk as a programmer too. I find Qt linearly superior because of the object-oriented design, MVC support, and the mixin architecture for separating UI and controller logic, and QMetaObject::connectSlotsByName very reliably killing event handler wireup boilerplate. And who really cares how you lay out the widgets when there's Designer (the form designer that made me stop hating form designers) to do that. Oh, and even with those features, it's probably faster than Tk. Tk isn't hardly the Ruby of GUI toolkits, with the massive advocating of / tolerance to mediocrity of results, it's the PHP of GUI toolkits. David Vallner No Way Someone Reads This Whole ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_T\_Richter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@Michael\_T\_Richter](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michael_T_Richter)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 04:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/11 "2006-12-17T04:56:28Z")
> Tk is wonderful! It's really simple to manipulate widgets and graphics > in the way you'd expect. IMHO, Tk is the Ruby of GUI toolkits. I'm with David here. Tk isn't the Ruby of GUI toolkits. But I diverge sharply from him after that. He says it's the PHP of GUI toolkits. I say it's the GWBASIC of them. Tk-based GUIs are typically so fscking useless that I'd rather use the CLI and ed over an app coded in Tk. > I don't know why people hate it so much. They seem to prefer "desktop > integration" and eye-candy instead of clean, functional interfaces. > Sigh. ☹ You may want to do some reading before you embarrass yourself further. Start with The Rise of Worse is Better ([http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html\](http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html%5C)). Then pick up a book on good UI design. Almost any book written on the topic in, say, the past 20 years will open your eyes to just how much effort and thought goes into a good user interface, GUI or otherwise. (Here's a hint: the vast majority of user interfaces suck bowling balls through garden hoses.) > **···** > > On Sun, 2006-17-12 at 10:09 +0900, Suraj Kurapati wrote: > > -- > Michael T. Richter > Email: ttmrichter@gmail.com, mtr1966@hotpop.com > MSN: ttmrichter@hotmail.com, mtr1966@hotmail.com; YIM: > michael\_richter\_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber: > mtr1966@jabber.cn > > "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not > either to save or to destroy slavery." --Abraham Lincoln ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vallner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@David\_Vallner](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vallner)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 15:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/12 "2006-12-17T15:41:26Z")
Richard wrote: > David Vallner wrote: > > > How would that be a desktop application? > > To us programmers it would be a web app with a local server, but to > the user it would be indistinguishable from, say, an application built > with Visual C++ and Microsoft Foundation Classes running on a Windows > OS. Now -that- I want to see. Really. Odds are it Just Won't unless you only render in IE with high security privileges and abuse ActiveX with reckless abandon. > Does that make sense to you? As I'm generally not a fan of the heinous crimes commited in the name of Ajax, I'd have to see the result for that to happen. Most of the in-browser desktop mockups make me ask why not use Java Web Start / ClickOnce / Flex anyway? DHTML still doesn't work fully reliably even amongst standards-compliant browsers due to the W3C being too busy reinventing the world in angle brackets and trying to force the shiny markup language of the day down the throats of the whole ten people that understand and need it instead of properly addressing Ajax (that undoubtedly impacts more web users right now than the joke that is XForms). And the dependencies for the above technologies aren't rocket science to fullfill. David Vallner ---
**Author:** ![Victor\_Zverok\_Shepel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a88e57/32.png) [@Victor\_Zverok\_Shepel](https://rubytalk.org/u/Victor_Zverok_Shepel)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 04:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/13 "2006-12-17T04:07:31Z")
> Suraj Kurapati wrote: > > > I don't know why people hate it so much. They seem to prefer "desktop > > integration" and eye-candy instead of clean, functional interfaces. > > Sigh. ☹ > > Some of us have to "sell" software, at least to managers - then it matters. > > [Hide the women, children and livestock. This just got bloody as I > predicted.] > > Also, you're missing the point. It's a GUI, noone really gives a damn if > the programmer had an easier time coding it if there's hundreds of users > that will feel constantly alienated by it because of some detail the > programmer didn't feel like bothering with. [...] > David Vallner > No Way Someone Reads This Whole I had. And it was good words. Really worth to be remembered and quoted. (I've been freelance UI designer and usability consultant during several years, so I somewhat know, what it all about.) V. > **···** > > From: David Vallner [mailto:david@vallner.net] > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:56 AM ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_T\_Richter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@Michael\_T\_Richter](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michael_T_Richter)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 04:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/14 "2006-12-17T04:10:52Z")
I did. And applauded most of the way through it. Programmers have a very annoying habit of not only disregarding the end-users but, indeed, actively sneering at them. This is why software sucks almost, but not quite, universally. > **···** > > On Sun, 2006-17-12 at 12:56 +0900, David Vallner wrote: > > > No Way Someone Reads This Whole > > -- > Michael T. Richter > Email: ttmrichter@gmail.com, mtr1966@hotpop.com > MSN: ttmrichter@hotmail.com, mtr1966@hotmail.com; YIM: > michael\_richter\_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber: > mtr1966@jabber.cn > > "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not > either to save or to destroy slavery." --Abraham Lincoln ---
**Author:** ![Suraj\_Kurapati1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@Suraj\_Kurapati1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Suraj_Kurapati1)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 05:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/15 "2006-12-17T05:11:01Z")
David Vallner wrote: > Suraj Kurapati wrote: > > > I don't know why people hate it so much. They seem to prefer "desktop > > integration" and eye-candy instead of clean, functional interfaces. > > Sigh. ☹ > > Some of us have to "sell" software, at least to managers - then it > matters. Bingo! That's where we differ. I don't sell software so I haven't had to deal with market pressures and bosses and customers, etc. Thus, my claim might have more merit when viewed in the interest of programmer productivity/laziness. > Also, you're missing the point. It's a GUI, noone really gives a damn if > the programmer had an easier time coding it if there's hundreds of users > that will feel constantly alienated by it because of some detail the > programmer didn't feel like bothering with. Alas, what a world we live in. The same goes for movies where the stars and director get a substantial chunk of the publicity/credit while the back-end sound engineer is largely ignored. [...] > Approaching user interface design with a > programmer's mindset can only end in pain, tragedy, and Tk. LOL good one. 🙂 > Also, you're confusing internal UI consistency, and external UI > consistency. Internal UI consistency is when the features of the UI fit > together to make working with the software alone productive (your clean > and functional). Interesting. > External consistency is when the UI incorporates features that make > working with that software in connection with other software on the > computer productive. This means panels will scroll when the mouse is > over them and won't require clicking on the buttons. This means that the > file chooser, on XP, will have a "My Documents" button as the third one > in a button sidepanel on the left. I don't use windows, so I'm quite satisfied with Tk's horrendous appearance and its lack of integration with "My documents". Nevertheless, I can understand your point of view and I do sympathize. [...] > However, the > mindset of most Tk users seems to be to fight achieving external > consistency kicking and screaming and inventing nonarguments to prove > such patent nonsense as external consistence being undesirable. > (That's usually laziness, youthful zealotry, Alright, you've caught me there 🙂 > Also, to set you right. People, or at least I (the only part of "people" > I can confidently speak for - for what part were you speaking and with > how much confidence when you used the words "people" and "they" again? - > obviously not yourself) I do so with the confidence of uncertainty (probability = 0.5). When one does not know the world, one naturally assumes the world is like one's self. Alas, I am but a frog in a well. [...] > David Vallner > No Way Someone Reads This Whole Thanks for the lesson. > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Suraj\_Kurapati1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@Suraj\_Kurapati1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Suraj_Kurapati1)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 05:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/16 "2006-12-17T05:16:50Z")
Michael T. Richter wrote: > > Tk is wonderful! It's really simple to manipulate widgets and graphics > > in the way you'd expect. IMHO, Tk is the Ruby of GUI toolkits. > > I'm with David here. Tk isn't the Ruby of GUI toolkits. But I diverge > sharply from him after that. He says it's the PHP of GUI toolkits. I > say it's the GWBASIC of them. > > Tk-based GUIs are typically so fscking useless that I'd rather use the > CLI and ed over an app coded in Tk. > > > I don't know why people hate it so much. They seem to prefer "desktop > > integration" and eye-candy instead of clean, functional interfaces. > > Sigh. ☹ > > You may want to do some reading before you embarrass yourself further. Why should I fear embarrassing or otherwise making an ass out of myself? Such fear would prevent me from learning and keep me ignorant forever. > Start with The Rise of Worse is Better > ([http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html\](http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html%5C)). Then pick up a book on > good UI design. Almost any book written on the topic in, say, the past > 20 years will open your eyes to just how much effort and thought goes > into a good user interface, GUI or otherwise. (Here's a hint: the vast > majority of user interfaces suck bowling balls through garden hoses.) Thanks for the link and suggestions. > **···** > > > On Sun, 2006-17-12 at 10:09 +0900, Suraj Kurapati wrote: > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C). ---
**Author:** ![Richard3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b5a626/32.png) [@Richard3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Richard3)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 19:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/17 "2006-12-17T19:50:10Z")
> Odds are it Just Won't unless you only > render in IE with high security privileges and abuse ActiveX with > reckless abandon. A client's WindowsXP machine, for the purpose of running a Rails-based app, will have Firefox running and invoke the app with [http://localhost:3000](http://localhost:3000), which will be serviced by WEBrick, a Ruby-based web server, supported by a publicly available database like MySQL. No ActiveX nor security risks. > As I'm generally not a fan of the heinous crimes commited in the name of > Ajax, I'd have to see the result for that to happen. I'll have an example on my website in a month. Send me an email inviting me to contact you when it's ready if you're interested in seeing it. > Most of the > in-browser desktop mockups make me ask why not use Java Web Start / > ClickOnce / Flex anyway? IMHO, Ruby + Rails is a far superior way to build both desktop and web apps. Java is, too my taste, a lousy C++, which I felt is the most elegant programming language ever. But I've come to see that Ruby is the most economical yet powerful (in terms of programmer effort) languages ever. Of course, I'm not really qualified to make such judgments, despite 40+ years of professional programming experience with IBM mainframe assembler, Fortran, and Cobol to desktop Visual C++. I see by your disdain of some aspects of the current state of affairs that you've thought a lot about some of these issues, so I'm interested in knowing whether you're more sanguine about the Ruby-Rails-WEBrick-MySQL environment. Best wishes, Richard Muller ---
**Author:** ![Richard3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b5a626/32.png) [@Richard3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Richard3)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 20:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/18 "2006-12-17T20:20:07Z")
> Odds are it Just Won't unless you only > render in IE with high security privileges and abuse ActiveX with > reckless abandon. A client's WindowsXP machine, for the purpose of running a Rails-based app, will have Firefox running and invoke the app with [http://localhost:3000](http://localhost:3000), which will be serviced by WEBrick, a Ruby-based web server, and supported by a publicly available database-server like MySQL. No ActiveX nor security risks. But plenty of Ajax. > As I'm generally not a fan of the heinous crimes committed in the name of > Ajax, I'd have to see the result for that to happen. I'll have an example on a website in a month. > Most of the > in-browser desktop mockups make me ask why not use Java Web Start / > ClickOnce / Flex anyway? IMHO, Ruby + Rails is a far superior way to build both desktop and web apps. Java is, too my taste, a lousy C++, which I felt is the most elegant programming language ever. But I've come to see that Ruby is the most economical yet powerful (in terms of programmer effort) languages ever. Of course, I'm not really qualified to make such judgments, despite 40+ years of professional programming experience with IBM mainframe assembler, Fortran, and Cobol to desktop Visual C++. I see by your disdain of some aspects of the current state of affairs that you've thought a lot about some of these issues, so I'm interested in knowing whether you're more sanguine about the Firefox-Ruby-Rails-WEBrick-MySQL environment. As I said, I'll have a sample app up in a month or so housed on a website that supports Ruby-Rails-MySQL apps. If you wish, send me an email indicating your interest and I'll respond with URL, user-name and password when it's ready. Right now I'm toying with the idea of posting a small reward to anyone who can crack the web app and email me selected content from it (sort of a poor man's way of tests done on the DES, as I recall). Best wishes, Richard Muller ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_DeMello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@Martin\_DeMello](https://rubytalk.org/u/Martin_DeMello)\ **Post date:** [21 December 2006 18:42 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/19 "2006-12-21T18:42:27Z")
Apart from the TkCanvas, which is utterly brilliant. How many other toolkits give you a vector-oriented canvas, in which you can draw graphical objects that respond to click events, for free? martin > **···** > > On 12/17/06, Michael T. Richter \ wrote: > > > On Sun, 2006-17-12 at 10:09 +0900, Suraj Kurapati wrote: > > Tk is wonderful! It's really simple to manipulate widgets and graphics > > in the way you'd expect. IMHO, Tk is the Ruby of GUI toolkits. > > > > I'm with David here. Tk isn't the Ruby of GUI toolkits. But I diverge sharply from him after that. He says it's the PHP of GUI toolkits. I say it's the GWBASIC of them. > > > > Tk-based GUIs are typically so fscking useless that I'd rather use the CLI and ed over an > > app coded in Tk. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_T\_Richter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@Michael\_T\_Richter](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michael_T_Richter)\ **Post date:** [17 December 2006 05:43 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789/20 "2006-12-17T05:43:24Z")
> \> You may want to do some reading before you embarrass yourself further. > Why should I fear embarrassing or otherwise making an ass out of myself? > Such fear would prevent me from learning and keep me ignorant forever. That is both an interesting and a refreshing attitude. However there is a key word you missed above: "further". Being afraid of initial embarrassment is silly. Mistakes are a part of life and ignorance is the default condition. (I'd even, in my more cynical moments, extend "ignorance" to "stupidity" in the previous sentence -- yes, self included.) What you should be afraid of is repeated embarrassment: embarrassment on the same (or similar) points. Being initially embarrassed is a sign of learning. Being further embarrassed on the same topic is a sign of not learning. See what I mean? > \> Start with The Rise of Worse is Better > \> ([http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html\](http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html%5C)). Then pick up a book on > \> good UI design. Almost any book written on the topic in, say, the past > \> 20 years will open your eyes to just how much effort and thought goes > \> into a good user interface, GUI or otherwise. (Here's a hint: the vast > \> majority of user interfaces suck bowling balls through garden hoses.) > Thanks for the link and suggestions. Thanks for the refreshing outlook. Usually people who talk about how "tool \ is great and people who don't like it Just Don't Get It" aren't so open-minded. If you want to take this off-list, I might even be able to direct you to some decent books on HUI design (or at least some web pages with decent information). > **···** > > On Sun, 2006-17-12 at 14:16 +0900, Suraj Kurapati wrote: > > -- > Michael T. Richter > Email: ttmrichter@gmail.com, mtr1966@hotpop.com > MSN: ttmrichter@hotmail.com, mtr1966@hotmail.com; YIM: > michael\_richter\_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber: > mtr1966@jabber.cn > > "[Blacks] ... are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body > and mind." --Thomas Jefferson [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/does-ruby-generate-windows-and-dialog-boxes/33789.md?page=2)