About QT, you need to take into account that it's free only for Open
Source projects, and it's quite expensive for any other type of project.
I've been using FXRuby for my first Ruby app and it's ok, it's not
perfect but it gets the job done. WXRuby seems to be a good candidate in
the future, whenever it's production ready (WXRuby site clearly says the
last version is not production ready 
)
Nando
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
That's good that you narrowed down your search. I recall writing the
same GUI app using a couple of different toolkits for Ruby. It was the
same choices as yours --- Qt and Tk. Looking at the overall
experience, coding time, and whatnot made it interesting comparing the
two. I would up choosing the Qt version as my producction app. In this
case it was for a handheld CRM app written for the Sharp Zaurus.
Point of clarification on the Microsoft tools. You can download Visual
C# 2005 Express edition and get a "lite" version of the VS 2005 for
free. It lacks some of the features of the full-blown IDE but it's
still very effective. Same with SQL Server 2005 Express Edition. For
testing out things all of it costs nothing. I wouldn't call any of it
"crippleware" as it is very functional and good for testing out what
you're looking to do. For my workplace I just had the company spring
$200 USD for VS 2005 so that I could have all of the functionality at
my fingertips.
Good luck with your Ruby GUI development work. The code sure is a lot
easier to read and pick back up again once you've left it for awhile
(compared with C#)!
On Feb 4, 3:38 pm, Matthew Borgeson <hibridmatth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> Matthew Borgeson wrote:
>> Gtk (Would be nice on my Nokia n800 maemo)
>> Qt (My preference)
>> Tk (Seems to be the favorite of the Ruby folk)>> My question is which would be the easiest to learn. While I want to use
>> Qt (I just feel comfortable with its maturity)I am concerned by how hard
>> it will be to learn, considering I have no C++ background.> Does it affect your decision that Nokia just bought the company that
> makes Qt?> I've never developed anything with Qt, but it seems unlikely that you
> need to know any C++ to use the ruby bindings.I just wanted to thand everyone with your two cents; it helped me make a
decision as follows:While I appreciate the C# thoughts, I'll pass as well as on any Visual
Studio or Microsoft tools. Besides the MS limiting of the free flow of
information, I really don't want to spend any money on software; I don't
mind buying books but I just feel buying software is a waste of money as
far as a hobby is concerned; At least I can take books with me on the
train, inthe bathroom, et cetera...I downloaded the Agile Friday book on QtRuby (9 bucks) as well as the
tutorial from the Tk 8.5 website(Which actually does look better than
the versions before it)and have decided that I am going to try both on a
simple little 100-line, dose- calculating program I cobbled together and
see which is quicker to learn;Whichever one gives me the fewest
conceptual headaches wins :-).The Gtk documentation seemed a bit convoluted and filled with exceptions
when I paged through it the first time. I looked at shoes, but it seemed
a bit cutting edge for me. WxRuby seemed a bit convoluted as well. The
tutorials for Tk and Qt are organized and seem to be what I need. I
guess Ill post here once I have finished the two programs and let
everyonoe know how it goes...Thanks again for the feedback-
Matthew F Borgesono
--
Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Despite some evidence and much opinion to the contrary, modern versions
of Tk actually produce a very good, platform-specific look and feel, if
used correctly. Tk also has an API that is very easy to work with.
For some good up-to-date info, see the tutorial at http://www.tkdocs.com
Mark
John Joyce wrote:
A quicker easier way? Well, that's a good question, initially, I think of RubyCocoa, but of course it requires a little understanding of the Cocoa/NextStep/OpenStep world.... however, what I don't know and am very curious about now is whether or not there is a RubyCocoa equivalent for GNUOpenStep (or is it GNUStep?) itself!!?
* gnustep-libs/rigs
Latest version available: 0.2.2.20050714-r1
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Unstable version: 0.2.2.20050714-r1
Use Flags (stable): -debug -doc
Size of downloaded files: [no/bad digest]
Homepage: GNUstep Developer Tools - RIGS
Description: Ruby Interface for GNUstep.
License: LGPL-2.1 GPL-2
Jayson Williams wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008 3:56 PM, Matthew Borgeson <hibridmatth...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Everything else since then has been done using VS2005 and C#. The C# language is like tying
your hands behind your back compared to the elegance of Ruby but the
ease of dragging and dropping widgets and having the wiring together
done behind the scenes is worth itI'd love to get back into what current projects and revisions of GUI
builders are out there for Ruby though!I would agree %100 with your comparison of C# and Ruby. Ruby almost
feels like it has a forgiving, intuitive soul, that understands what
you want it to do. C# on the other hand, feels more like a cold dead
thing, that will obey your command, if you ask nicely, but has no
intuition. Another option down the line for you may be Microsoft's
IronRuby. I sort of cringe at the thought of IronRuby though. Its like
turning Ruby into a Borg,
...resistance is futile... you will assimilate!...
There is another tool by ActiveState called Tk Gui Builder (formally
called SpecTCL). It will create a Tk GUI for Ruby, Perl, and a few
other platforms, and has the RAD feel to it. Unfortunately it is no
longer supported, I recently gave GUI Builder a try, and although it
works well, it made some things more difficult. In the end, I found it
easier to write the code for the GUI myself. It might be worth you
having a look a though. There is also a small Google Group called
"Ruby And The Tk Toolkit", that you might find useful.
Actually, WideStudio has drag-and-drop and can als0 do some of the wiring automatically. However, very few people seem to use it.
Cheers,
Mohit.
2/5/2008 | 12:58 PM.
Ed you're a saint!
Now I have a reason to put up with the things I don't like about linux GUIs!
I've long felt the biggest problem with Linux for the desktop (meaning for everyday people) is that the interfaces stink when you're used to OS X or even Windows. The decentralized nature of it is that things are pretty fugly at times and inconsistent.
KDE is nicer looking, but the overall system lacks consistency with that or Gnome.
I love using the Mac, but I have little love for their business practices. Microsoft is also, more obviously, hard to love...
I'm now looking forward to playing with gnustep on linux!
On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:54 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
John Joyce wrote:
A quicker easier way? Well, that's a good question, initially, I think of RubyCocoa, but of course it requires a little understanding of the Cocoa/NextStep/OpenStep world.... however, what I don't know and am very curious about now is whether or not there is a RubyCocoa equivalent for GNUOpenStep (or is it GNUStep?) itself!!?
* gnustep-libs/rigs
Latest version available: 0.2.2.20050714-r1
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Unstable version: 0.2.2.20050714-r1
Use Flags (stable): -debug -doc
Size of downloaded files: [no/bad digest]
Homepage: GNUstep Developer Tools - RIGS
Description: Ruby Interface for GNUstep.
License: LGPL-2.1 GPL-2
I'm sure part of the reason for that is that it's not in either the
standard APT repositories for Debian or the FreeBSD ports system. These
are the two largest software management system archives out there, by the
way -- so if they don't have 'em, chances are good people aren't going to
find them easy and convenient to install a lot of the time.
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:57:57PM +0900, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
Actually, WideStudio has drag-and-drop and can als0 do some of the
wiring automatically. However, very few people seem to use it.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Isaac Asimov: "Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is
completely programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest."
John Joyce wrote:
John Joyce wrote:
A quicker easier way? Well, that's a good question, initially, I think of RubyCocoa, but of course it requires a little understanding of the Cocoa/NextStep/OpenStep world.... however, what I don't know and am very curious about now is whether or not there is a RubyCocoa equivalent for GNUOpenStep (or is it GNUStep?) itself!!?
* gnustep-libs/rigs
Latest version available: 0.2.2.20050714-r1
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Unstable version: 0.2.2.20050714-r1
Use Flags (stable): -debug -doc
Size of downloaded files: [no/bad digest]
Homepage: GNUstep Developer Tools - RIGS
Description: Ruby Interface for GNUstep.
License: LGPL-2.1 GPL-2Ed you're a saint!
Now I have a reason to put up with the things I don't like about linux GUIs!
I've long felt the biggest problem with Linux for the desktop (meaning for everyday people) is that the interfaces stink when you're used to OS X or even Windows. The decentralized nature of it is that things are pretty fugly at times and inconsistent.
KDE is nicer looking, but the overall system lacks consistency with that or Gnome.
I love using the Mac, but I have little love for their business practices. Microsoft is also, more obviously, hard to love...
I'm now looking forward to playing with gnustep on linux!
Well ... before you canonize me too quickly, see
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208643
I've been running WindowMaker as my main desktop for a couple of years now, but I've never actually attempted to get the GNUStep stuff working. I'll never go back to KDE or Gnome -- they're just too bloated.
On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:54 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
