So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.
I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
GUI toolkit to make it better looking.
I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
know what I am talking about:)
What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.
Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.
I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
GUI toolkit to make it better looking.I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
know what I am talking about:)What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
If you are on windows then a GUI toolkit named Fxruby should have been
distributed with the Ruby installer.
Documentation is relative good (better than other toolkits).
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <denrober@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Simon Strandgaard
These may help:
http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?GUIFrameworkProject/GUIComparison
I haven't used one yet, but based on what I read in the comparisons,
I'm leaning towards Wx.
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <denrober@gmail.com> wrote:
So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
GUI toolkit to make it better looking.I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
know what I am talking about:)What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
Thanks for everyones input. I will check out the links provided.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:27:29 -0800, Dennis Roberts <denrober@gmail.com> wrote:
So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
GUI toolkit to make it better looking.I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
know what I am talking about:)What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
Well fltk looks the coolest. I love the examples. Unfortunatly it
hasn't been touched since 2002 and I can't even get it to compile:(
I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
GUI toolkit to make it better looking.I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
know what I am talking about:)What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
If you are on windows then a GUI toolkit named Fxruby should have been
distributed with the Ruby installer.Documentation is relative good (better than other toolkits).
I tried FXRuby as my first ruby GUI toolkit and immediately
i hit problems. Just making a plain window wasn't working
right. All of the bits you set to get borders, menus, etc
weren't working.
I would recommend starting with WX or GTK2. I haven't had
much experience in these kits yet, but my experienc with
FXRuby was horrid. I just wanted to find out how well the
GUI part would work but haven't gotten heavily into it, so
whatever experience you obtain, i would like to know how you
made out.
Regs,
Derek
So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
GUI toolkit to make it better looking.I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
know what I am talking about:)What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
If you are on windows then a GUI toolkit named Fxruby should have been
distributed with the Ruby installer.Documentation is relative good (better than other toolkits).
This was a brief topic on #ruby-lang, too. My vote goes for FOX, as well,
although Wx has the advantage of using native widgets. FLTK looks promising
but may not be feature-rich enough as yet.
Simon Strandgaard
E
On Sat, March 12, 2005 10:05 am, Simon Strandgaard said:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <denrober@gmail.com> wrote:
To impress your wife if she is no programmer herself, best use Flash,
don't program a line but make the words "I love you" fly blinking
along the screen and form a heart afterwards. Sounds silly, is silly
but shurely works better than the nicest, most impressive and best
designed library/application ever written
Cheers,
Brian
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:05:20 +0900, Simon Strandgaard <neoneye@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <denrober@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
> Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.
--
Brian Schröder
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/
> What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
These may help:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits/TakeTwo
http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?GUIFrameworkProject/GUIComparison
I haven't used one yet, but based on what I read in the comparisons,
I'm leaning towards Wx.
I was recently trying to decide on a GUI toolkit to use with Ruby and ended
up with wxRuby. I'd probably choose it again (it is the best of a bad bunch,
although I haven't looked at WideStudio).
However, it has some problems, mainly because it is quite young:
- It is remarkably unstable on Windows. Whether this is wxRuby, wxWindows,
or the way I use them, I don't know. The same code using wxRuby on GTK has
been fine so far.
- There are a few bugs and quite a few missing calls, especially with menus.
- Error checking is virtually nonexistent. It will segfault if you pass the
wrong type of argument into pretty much any method.
- There are few documents. However, this is a problem with all the other
toolkits and I find that the wxRuby examples are okay and the C++ docs at
wxwindows.org map (usually!) fairly well to wxRuby. Still, be prepared to
read the source occasionally to figure out just what wxRuby is expecting for
some methods.
- The style can feel quite alien to Ruby, but it is fairly easy to map into
a Ruby program.
- I think this is mainly a wxWindows problem but some things (particularly
layout, sometimes) really don't work the way you would expect.
- It looks like the current version has been pretty much abandoned and work
is going on on a version using SWIG. So it seems that if you have any
problems with 0.6, you are stuck with them for now :-).
Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike Fox
which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
than Ruby/GTK.
-- Nicholas.
"Bill Guindon" <agorilla@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly wasn't working for you - but my experience
with FXRuby was every bit as 'joyful' as my experience with Ruby.
The links to the comparisons that someone else gave you are a good
starting place. Asking people on this list what you should use will
result in what has resulted - everybody finds one that they like and
that fits their needs, and they recommend it. Nothin' wrong with that,
just don't expect to get a definitive answer from a bunch of personal
opinions. 
-Rich
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:56:57 +0900, Derek Wyatt <tone_hole@yahoo.ca> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1>>I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
>>GUI toolkit to make it better looking.
>>
>>I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
>>know what I am talking about:)
>>
>>What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
>
>
> If you are on windows then a GUI toolkit named Fxruby should have been
> distributed with the Ruby installer.
>
> http://www.fxruby.org/
>
> Documentation is relative good (better than other toolkits).I tried FXRuby as my first ruby GUI toolkit and immediately
i hit problems. Just making a plain window wasn't working
right. All of the bits you set to get borders, menus, etc
weren't working.I would recommend starting with WX or GTK2. I haven't had
much experience in these kits yet, but my experienc with
FXRuby was horrid. I just wanted to find out how well the
GUI part would work but haven't gotten heavily into it, so
whatever experience you obtain, i would like to know how you
made out.Regs,
Derek
In the case of mine, I'd have to program a first person shooter that
is as every bit as fun as Quake 3 Arena in ruby.
Needless to say I've given up.....
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 02:41:10 +0900, Brian Schröder <ruby.brian@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:05:20 +0900, Simon Strandgaard <neoneye@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <denrober@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
> > Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.
>
> Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
> and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.
>To impress your wife if she is no programmer herself, best use Flash,
don't program a line but make the words "I love you" fly blinking
along the screen and form a heart afterwards. Sounds silly, is silly
but shurely works better than the nicest, most impressive and best
designed library/application ever written
Cheers,
Brian
--
Brian Schröder
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/
--
Thomas G. Willis
http://paperbackmusic.net
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)
Possibly that might be because the ruby bindings for Qt 3.x are called
'QtRuby'. There was an older unrelated project for Qt 1.x, called
'Ruby/Qt'. Try searching for 'kde + ruby' or 'qt + ruby' instead.
As QtRuby/Korundum are part of the KDE project I would assume FreeBSD ports
exist.
I don't know what you mean be 'lighter' - there is a version of Qt for
embedded devices which works fine on PDAs and Smartphones.
The next version of Qt, Qt 4.x will be GPL'd on the Windows platform, and
there will be a corresponding GPL'd windows version of QtRuby. It is
already licensed under the GPL on all other platforms, including Mac OS X.
If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.
-- Richard
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike Fox
which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
than Ruby/GTK.
Ah...beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder.
Fox looks fine to me on Windows. Of course, my wife tells me I have no fashion sense, so what do I know.
Jamey
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email and any materials contained in any attachments is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the intended recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender by email and destroy all copies of the original message, including attachments.
Richard Dale wrote:
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
I didn't get your original post so I'm replying here from someone quoting
it.
lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)Possibly that might be because the ruby bindings for Qt 3.x are called
'QtRuby'. There was an older unrelated project for Qt 1.x, called
'Ruby/Qt'. Try searching for 'kde + ruby' or 'qt + ruby' instead.
Aha! Found it. Thanks.
As QtRuby/Korundum are part of the KDE project I would assume FreeBSD
ports
exist.
Not that I can find. However, Google seems to imply it exists so perhaps it
just hasn't appeared yet.
I'm fairly suspicious of the link between KDE and QtRuby, I doubt it is
likely but I really really don't want to turn round one day and find I'm
having to tell people to install parts of KDE in order to get my stuff to
work.
I don't know what you mean be 'lighter' - there is a version of Qt for
embedded devices which works fine on PDAs and Smartphones.
I'm not really concerned with PDAs and Smartphones.
Qt is considerably larger than Wx and QtRuby appears to be larger than
wxRuby. On a more anecdotal level, I've consistently found Qt apps to have
problems with memory consumption and speed - this may be, however, because
on the whole the Qt apps I've used are KDE apps.
The next version of Qt, Qt 4.x will be GPL'd on the Windows platform, and
there will be a corresponding GPL'd windows version of QtRuby. It is
already licensed under the GPL on all other platforms, including Mac OS X.If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.
Windows support at a later date is not an awful lot of use for me. Windows
was part of the reason we changed toolkit in the first place (a large
proportion - probably 80-90% - of potential users are on Windows). wxRuby is
not perfect on Windows either, of course :-).
Anyway, I'm sticking with wxRuby at the moment despite it's problems. Now
that I know where it is, when QtRuby becomes more visible and portable - or
I get seriously pissed off with wxRuby's flaws - I will consider it again.
-- Nicholas.
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike Fox
which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
than Ruby/GTK.
What do you find to be ugly about FOX? Just wondering ... admittedly it is not as pretty as a Qt or .NET app can be, but is there anything in particular that offends your sensibilities?
I am trying to decide on a toolkit too, as I have a few .NET apps to port (I'm finally back on Linux - yay!) but FOX looks appealing if only for the strength of the Ruby bindings...
Thanks,
Tim
Actually, how easy is OpenGL to use in ruby? I remember seeing some
examples a while back, but never took a close look at the code. A nice
API for making Ruby apps with an OpenGL UI would be cool
Douglas
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:01:31 +0900, Tom Willis <tom.willis@gmail.com> wrote:
In the case of mine, I'd have to program a first person shooter that
is as every bit as fun as Quake 3 Arena in ruby.
Richard,
I've been interested in using QtRuby for some time now. I believe Alex once mentioned that lack of availability of a non-commercial Windows license for Windows was an issue, but I recently discovered that the book C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131240722\) does contain a non-commercial Windows distribution of Qt3.
In any case, how much money and demand are we talking about to make Qt a viable GUI toolkit for cross-platform ruby development? I'd bet that once QtRuby became available for Windows it would catch on quickly.
John-Mason P. Shackelford
Richard Dale wrote:
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)Possibly that might be because the ruby bindings for Qt 3.x are called
'QtRuby'. There was an older unrelated project for Qt 1.x, called
'Ruby/Qt'. Try searching for 'kde + ruby' or 'qt + ruby' instead.As QtRuby/Korundum are part of the KDE project I would assume FreeBSD ports
exist.I don't know what you mean be 'lighter' - there is a version of Qt for
embedded devices which works fine on PDAs and Smartphones.The next version of Qt, Qt 4.x will be GPL'd on the Windows platform, and
there will be a corresponding GPL'd windows version of QtRuby. It is
already licensed under the GPL on all other platforms, including Mac OS X.If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.-- Richard
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
> fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
> appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)
Urge to.. defend Qt... rising!...
If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.
Could you give some details on how this would differ from whats
already available?
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:59:26 +0900, Richard Dale <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
spooq
"Jamey Cribbs" <cribbsj@oakwood.org> wrote in message
news:4236F5B5.8020409@oakwood.org...
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
>Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike
Fox
>which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention
the
>fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
>appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
>than Ruby/GTK.
>
>
Ah...beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder.Fox looks fine to me on Windows. Of course, my wife tells me I have no
fashion sense, so what do I know.
Fox _is_ pretty much fine on Windows. Unfortunately, on X it is too ugly for
me to use :-).
-- Nicholas.
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
Not that I can find. However, Google seems to imply it exists so perhaps
it just hasn't appeared yet.I'm fairly suspicious of the link between KDE and QtRuby, I doubt it is
likely but I really really don't want to turn round one day and find I'm
having to tell people to install parts of KDE in order to get my stuff to
work.
QtRuby has been carefully written so that it doesn't have any KDE
dependencies, and that won't change. It should build in any environment
with automake/autoconf, if there isn't an existing FreeBSD port.
I don't know what you mean be 'lighter' - there is a version of Qt for
embedded devices which works fine on PDAs and Smartphones.I'm not really concerned with PDAs and Smartphones.
Qt is considerably larger than Wx and QtRuby appears to be larger than
wxRuby. On a more anecdotal level, I've consistently found Qt apps to have
problems with memory consumption and speed - this may be, however, because
on the whole the Qt apps I've used are KDE apps.
The Qt 4 toolkit is being split up into separate libraries, and so if memory
is tight you will be able to just use the widgets part for instance. I
would say that both Qt 3 and KDE are getting faster, and Qt 3.3.4/KDE 3.4
seems pretty snappy to me. I would be interested in some measurements to
compare wxRuby with QtRuby - you're probably right about Qt needing more
memory, but I don't know how much.
The Korundum KDE version of the bindings is pretty large as the api it wraps
is so huge (1000+ classes), but I don't think that QtRuby is too bad.