Just to throw my hat into the ring, I find the ruby-gnome2 bindings to
be rubyish. And you can use just the Gtk2 bindings if you so desire.
I've written a couple of utilities for my own use w/ those bindings.
Plus the ruby-gnome2 bindings have pretty good documentation IMO.
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?
The default font is ugly, the dour grey colour is ugly and non-standard, the
way the menus work is unusual, irritating and ugly. Most of the controls are
blocky, poorly spaced and very heavy-looking and, needless to say, ugly :-).
Much of this stuff is probably fixable and undoubtedly a matter of opinion,
but I don't like it and I don't really have the patience to mess about when
there are already more aesthetically pleasing toolkits out there.
-- Nicholas.
···
"Tim Ferrell" <Tim.Ferrell@s0nspark.com> wrote:
OpenGL is very easy to use. I don't think that GLUT works all that
great with Ruby, although I did see it work once.
But you'd need to find a UI toolkit to use with OpenGL though. GTK2 is great.
···
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:37:22 +0900, Douglas Livingstone <rampant@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
>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 coolDouglas
Don't know about opengl. It always seemed to me that opengl/directx-type
stuff was too low-level to do an actual 3d program in. I just want to load
up painted models with animated skeletons and tell them what state to be in
and where 
Not that I've ever gotten around to doing a 3d program since before 3d
hardware ;D
But you might want to check out this too:
And maybe look for a ruby wrapper for OGRE, too, since I keep hearing good
things about it
I wouldn't call OpenGL a GUI though; maybe a GI You might want to look
into korundum for that
···
On Saturday 12 March 2005 18:37, Douglas Livingstone wrote:
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.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
--
Lee.
Luke Graham 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)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?
Only the license - it would allow you to write commercial software which you
can't do with the GPL'd version. Often a GPL license isn't suitable for
even internal software development, because outside consultants might want
to use it and that would count as 'distributing the software' under the
GPL.
There is a commercial version of PyQt which has apparently sold 'hundreds of
copies', but then there are many more python programmers than ruby ones. So
it's difficult to estimate demand for QtRuby, but I really think ruby seems
to be catching on.
-- Richard
···
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:59:26 +0900, Richard Dale > <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
John-Mason P. Shackelford wrote:
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.
It still probably isn't compatible with the GPL, and can't be built with
gcc. I think it's worth waiting for Qt 4, which is out in a month or two.
Otherwise, with Qt 3 you need a copy of Visual C++ in addition to a
commercial Qt and QtRuby licenses.
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.
Maybe enough for Alex to give up his day job, and for me to avoid needing to
get one. The commercial version of PyQt sells for about 500 UKP I believe,
and we would base our pricing on that. We could also sell consultancy and
training. I think the GPL'd Windows Qt 4 will be needed to kickstart the
market, and get a critical mass of programmers.
···
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:
What do you find to be ugly about FOX? Just wondering ... admittedly it is
The default font is ugly, the dour grey colour is ugly and non-standard, the
way the menus work is unusual, irritating and ugly. Most of the controls are
blocky, poorly spaced and very heavy-looking and, needless to say, ugly :-).Much of this stuff is probably fixable and undoubtedly a matter of opinion,
but I don't like it and I don't really have the patience to mess about when
there are already more aesthetically pleasing toolkits out there.
It's your loss, then, and I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way. Fox/FXRuby may not be the best looking gui toolkit for Ruby (although I happen to like the way it looks), but it has a lot going for it. Just off the top of my head:
1. Stability
2. Well maintained, regularly enhanced
3. Very friendly developers (Jeroen and Lyle are great!)
4. Great selection of controls. The only thing missing is printing, which can easily be rectified
using Austin Ziegler's PDF library.
5. Small size. Using UPX and RubyScript2Exe, you can easily make a single exe of your app
that is under 2MB. Great for easy distribution.
Jamey Cribbs
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.
···
"Tim Ferrell" <Tim.Ferrell@s0nspark.com> wrote:
There they are, in the ruby\samples\opengl directory.. now, something
strange: the examples work, but when they are running, it changes the
speed of my mouse! Very annoying. WinXP SP2. Open GL shouldn't be
messing with that sort of stuff!
Douglas
···
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:52:31 +0900, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com> wrote:
OpenGL is very easy to use. I don't think that GLUT works all that
great with Ruby, although I did see it work once.
I don't get it. Why couldn't you compile it -- or anything else under
the Sun -- with gcc? GPL doesn't have such restrictions. What do you
think linux commercial apps are compiled with?
Csaba
···
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:04:48PM +0900, Richard Dale wrote:
It still probably isn't compatible with the GPL, and can't be built with
gcc. I think it's worth waiting for Qt 4, which is out in a month or two.
Nicholas Marriott wrote:
[snip]
It's your loss, then, and I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way.
Fox/FXRuby may not be the best looking gui toolkit for Ruby (although I
happen to like the way it looks), but it has a lot going for it. Just
off the top of my head:1. Stability
2. Well maintained, regularly enhanced
3. Very friendly developers (Jeroen and Lyle are great!)
4. Great selection of controls. The only thing missing is printing,
which can easily be rectified
using Austin Ziegler's PDF library.
5. Small size. Using UPX and RubyScript2Exe, you can easily make a
single exe of your app
that is under 2MB. Great for easy distribution.
These things are all great - even important - for the programmer. However,
for the user the look and interface is the most important thing and the GUI
exists for the user, not the programmer. I, at least, find the Fox interface
ugly and uncomfortable to use, which in my book makes it pretty useless.
I appreciate that Fox and FXRuby do have many good points (it is ahead of Wx
in most regards) but until the look of the interface on X is improved, I
won't even consider using it. I just can't agree that something that looks
like
is acceptable for a modern GUI app.
-- Nicholas.
···
"Jamey Cribbs" <cribbsj@oakwood.org> wrote:
Does fxRuby have an HTML control / widget (something to render HTML)?
Randy Kramer
···
On Friday 18 March 2005 08:20 am, Jamey Cribbs wrote:
4. Great selection of controls. The only thing missing is printing,
which can easily be rectified
using Austin Ziegler's PDF library.
Cs. Henk wrote:
···
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:04:48PM +0900, Richard Dale wrote:
It still probably isn't compatible with the GPL, and can't be built with
gcc. I think it's worth waiting for Qt 4, which is out in a month or two.I don't get it. Why couldn't you compile it -- or anything else under
the Sun -- with gcc? GPL doesn't have such restrictions. What do you
think linux commercial apps are compiled with?
Sorry I was talking about the Windows version, not the Linux one. The
current QtRuby for Qt 3 compiles just fine with gcc on Linux.
But at the moment you can't compile Qt 3 with gcc under Windows as far as I
know. I don't know what the problem is exactly, but apparently Trolltech
have done some work to improve Qt 4 compatibility with gcc on Windows.
-- Richard
Randy Kramer wrote:
···
On Friday 18 March 2005 08:20 am, Jamey Cribbs wrote:
4. Great selection of controls. The only thing missing is printing,
which can easily be rectified
using Austin Ziegler's PDF library.
Does fxRuby have an HTML control / widget (something to render HTML)?
Nope. I guess I should have said "The only thing missing for me...".
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.
It is unfortunate that this is one of the few screenshots on that page
that appears to have been taken on an X desktop of some kind, since it
looks like that particular application's author didn't put a lot of
effort into the UI design (which, to be fair, was probably not his
primary concern). There are, however, screenshots for several other
FOX applications on that same screen (including one by Mr. Cribbs)
that look (IMO) a lot more polished. Though it's true that some of
those screenshots were made on Windows boxes, FOX's look and feel is
(for better or worse) consistent across platforms, and so those
applications should look almost exactly the same running under X.
···
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:54:53 +0900, Nicholas Marriott <nicNOSPAM@ufie.org.invalid> wrote:
These things are all great - even important - for the programmer. However,
for the user the look and interface is the most important thing and the GUI
exists for the user, not the programmer. I, at least, find the Fox interface
ugly and uncomfortable to use, which in my book makes it pretty useless.I appreciate that Fox and FXRuby do have many good points (it is ahead of Wx
in most regards) but until the look of the interface on X is improved, I
won't even consider using it. I just can't agree that something that looks
likehttp://www.fox-toolkit.org/screenshots/arithmedrill-screenshot.png
is acceptable for a modern GUI app.
Hello Randy,
···
On Friday 18 March 2005 08:20 am, Jamey Cribbs wrote:
4. Great selection of controls. The only thing missing is printing,
which can easily be rectified
using Austin Ziegler's PDF library.
Does fxRuby have an HTML control / widget (something to render HTML)?
No, FOX has this (as an extension for Win32/LInux) but this is not
available in fxRuby.
The most important missing control is a rich text editor control.
You can use Scintilla for some purposes.
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
Sorry I was talking about the Windows version, not the Linux one. The
Me too
current QtRuby for Qt 3 compiles just fine with gcc on Linux.
I know.
But at the moment you can't compile Qt 3 with gcc under Windows as far as I
know. I don't know what the problem is exactly, but apparently Trolltech
have done some work to improve Qt 4 compatibility with gcc on Windows.
Oh so you mean it's *technically* impossible? I misunderstood your words
and I thought you imply it violates GPL to compile it on Windows which I
found quite a bizarre interpretation of the GPL
All is fine now, then. Except for that you can't get damned Qt compiled
on Windows with gcc
Csaba
···
On 2005-03-16, Richard Dale <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I didn't know there was an HTML widget for FOX, even as an extension
(and Google's not turning up anything for me). Could you please
provide a link? If it actually works, this is something I'd be glad to
try to add support for in FXRuby.
···
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:56:08 +0900, Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:
No, FOX has [an HTML widget] (as an extension for Win32/LInux) but this is not
available in fxRuby.
Hello Lyle,
···
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:56:08 +0900, Lothar Scholz > <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:
No, FOX has [an HTML widget] (as an extension for Win32/LInux) but this is not
available in fxRuby.
I didn't know there was an HTML widget for FOX, even as an extension
(and Google's not turning up anything for me). Could you please
provide a link? If it actually works, this is something I'd be glad to
try to add support for in FXRuby.
It's part of the SWT port to FOX
http://swtfox.sourceforge.net/
It uses Internet Explorer/Gecko on Win32 and Gecko on Linux.
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
I had mentioned earlier wxRuby. Well, It doesn't seem as stable as
wxPython, so I've been messing with gtk2 for the last couple of days
and it is the bomb(hipsters would say cool)
Very rubyish, to me anyway.
···
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 04:26:02 +0900, Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:
Hello Lyle,
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:56:08 +0900, Lothar Scholz > > <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote:
>> No, FOX has [an HTML widget] (as an extension for Win32/LInux) but this is not
>> available in fxRuby.> I didn't know there was an HTML widget for FOX, even as an extension
> (and Google's not turning up anything for me). Could you please
> provide a link? If it actually works, this is something I'd be glad to
> try to add support for in FXRuby.It's part of the SWT port to FOX
http://swtfox.sourceforge.net/It uses Internet Explorer/Gecko on Win32 and Gecko on Linux.
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
--
Thomas G. Willis
http://paperbackmusic.net