# Ruby GUIs and installation effort **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [25 November 2004 05:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967 "2004-11-25T05:23:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bin\_liu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df705f/32.png) [@bin\_liu](https://rubytalk.org/u/bin_liu)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 05:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/1 "2004-11-25T05:23:27Z")
I think one GUI system dos not depends others except ruby will bee more flexible. > R. Mark Volkmann wrote: > I'm concerned about the state of GUI toolkits for Ruby when in comes to > installation requirements, particularly under Mac OS X. I'm think about the > case where we want to create a Ruby-based GUI application for non-developers to > use. > > I recently went through the steps to get Tk working with Ruby under Mac OS X. > It was fairly complicated. After all that work I found that GUIs I had created > under Windows didn't look very good on Mac OS X. I then decided to try FOX. > That required downloading the X11 software from Apple. I installed that and > then found that I didn't automatically get the X11 library files that are > needed in order to build FOX. Maybe I'll get this figured out eventually. > > The bottom line is that even if you take the time to write a great GUI app. > using Ruby, your audience of potential users will likely be quite small. > Installing Ruby is easy enough, but setting up a GUI toolkit is prohibitively > complex for a non-developer. Compare this to Java. Install the Java Runtime > Environment or use Java Web Start and Swing is available. > > One answer is to create web apps instead. That's not appropriate for every > application though. > > Do others think this is an issue? > > -- > R. Mark Volkmann > Partner, Object Computing, Inc. Complete sense. What we need is an interface to make use of many toolkits Ex. Swing. I've been using WideStudio, but the main complaint is from MacOS users(it needs X11, and its not "pretty" like Cocoa). The main problem with these toolkits like wxWidgets(aka wxWindows, changed because M.S. forced them to change the name) are 1) lack of features, and 2) glitches between operating systems. What you say is not really an issue at all. On unicies you are required to downloaded needed runtime libraries. This also includes MacOSX. Simply download and install the needed libraries. If they are too difficult get a computer specialist to install them for you. Libraries are the main issue, if they are not in the system, it can be problematic to the non-tech savy user. David Ross > **···** > > -- > Hazzle free packages for Ruby? > RPA is available from [http://www.rubyarchive.org/](http://www.rubyarchive.org/) > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > programming is my life > my blog:[http://blog.itpub.net/liubin](http://blog.itpub.net/liubin) > [http://www.ruby-cn.org/](http://www.ruby-cn.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Lyndon\_Samson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Lyndon\_Samson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Lyndon_Samson)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 05:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/2 "2004-11-25T05:44:14Z")
Here's an idea XML/YAML based GUI Element Description Language Using this language, all we need is a blank canvas to render the GUI Elements/widgets to. Something like \    \        \            \                 \            \            \            \        \    \   \     \        \\\        \\\        \100\        \100\     \     \     \     \     \\\   \    \    \ \ Plenty of oportunity to cache rendered bitmaps for efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Ross](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8e8cbc/32.png) [@David\_Ross](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Ross)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 06:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/3 "2004-11-25T06:09:29Z")
bin liu wrote: > I think one GUI system dos not depends others except ruby will bee more flexible. > > > Complete sense. What we need is an interface to make use of many toolkits > > Ex. Swing. I've been using WideStudio, but the main complaint is from MacOS > > users(it needs X11, and its not "pretty" like Cocoa). The main problem with > > these toolkits like wxWidgets(aka wxWindows, changed because M.S. forced > > them to change the name) are 1) lack of features, and 2) glitches between > > operating systems. > > > > What you say is not really an issue at all. On unicies you are required to > > downloaded needed runtime libraries. This also includes MacOSX. Simply > > download and install the needed libraries. If they are too difficult get a > > computer specialist to install them for you. Libraries are the main issue, if > > they are not in the system, it can be problematic to the non-tech savy user. > > > > David Ross > >     Sure. This type of framework would be more flexible, but what about the people who use different languages? I definiately don't want to embed/use a ruby based gui frame work. Eclipse is an abomination to any work for me. This type of framework you describe can be real bothersome to people. There is no way to tackle the issue of GUIs because everybody has thier own choice. (ex. BSD vs. Linux) I could argue all day about the annoyances in each and every GUI toolkit out there, even WideStudio. The GUI toolkit choice is up to the user, if the develoer has a disagreement with design in the code... send patches. There is no thing as a perfect toolkit. David Ross > **···** > > -- > Hazzle free packages for Ruby? > RPA is available from [http://www.rubyarchive.org/](http://www.rubyarchive.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Alexander\_Kellett2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@Alexander\_Kellett2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Alexander_Kellett2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 14:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/4 "2004-11-25T14:23:47Z")
impossible. too slow. you would have to write half in c in any case Alex > **···** > > On Nov 25, 2004, at 6:23 AM, bin liu wrote: > > > I think one GUI system dos not depends others except ruby will bee more flexible. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Burt2](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/dave_burt2/32/2036_2.png) [@Dave\_Burt2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Burt2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 08:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/5 "2004-11-25T08:47:59Z")
> Sure. This type of framework would be more flexible, but what about > the people who use different languages? I definiately don't want to > embed/use a ruby based gui frame work. Eclipse is an abomination > to any work for me. This type of framework you describe can be > real bothersome to people. There is no way to tackle the issue of GUIs > because everybody has thier own choice. (ex. BSD vs. Linux) I could argue > all day about the annoyances in each and every GUI toolkit out there, > even WideStudio. The GUI toolkit choice is up to the user, if the develoer > has a disagreement with design in the code... send patches. There is no > thing as a perfect toolkit. > > David Ross I disagree that it's unhelpful. Look at Swing - a minimum of native components, with many lightweight widgets based on these. This means loose binding to the platform and hence better/easier portability. Such a system would become a natural choice over existing frameworks for all-Ruby projects. Obviously, for projects that include Python, C, whatever, you're right that it's not ideal. I'm not sure how important this is, although, thinking about Java, it may be more important than I have considered it. I think I'd vote for XML-based systems (XUL or XAML) to deal with these problems rather well, if I had any experience with them. What about an XUL-interpreting framework for Parrot? Cheers, Dave ---
**Author:** ![gabriele\_renzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e19b73/32.png) [@gabriele\_renzi](https://rubytalk.org/u/gabriele_renzi)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 10:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/6 "2004-11-25T10:52:59Z")
Lyndon Samson ha scritto: > Here's an idea > > XML/YAML based GUI Element Description Language I don't really like xml/yaml based gui description, but consider that Gtk/glade, wxruby/xrc , qtruby/qtdesigner all use xml files fto describe a gui. Maybe we need an xslt trsformation 🙂 Anyway, also consider that Sean Russel is/was sorking on a cross-gui gui package wich used an xmlish interface, XUL, IIRC. [http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/rouge-gui/](http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/rouge-gui/) ---
**Author:** ![gabriele\_renzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e19b73/32.png) [@gabriele\_renzi](https://rubytalk.org/u/gabriele_renzi)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 11:03 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/7 "2004-11-25T11:03:04Z")
Dave Burt ha scritto: > Look at Swing - a minimum of native components, with many lightweight widgets based on these. This means loose binding to the platform and hence better/easier portability. It seem to me that many people "hate" swing, consider it one of the main reason think that java is slow, and generally think SWT is much better. Anyway, I really don't think a real cross platform gui is possible. Gtk, and wxWidget both use some basic things and build over them to gain portability. But even in this case you're requiring the user to install it, and stuff like the platform's interface guideline would be messed up. I think that stuff like wxruby (or tk, wich I'm told can work with Aqua) is the best you can get. just my 0.02 euro ---
**Author:** ![David\_Ross](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8e8cbc/32.png) [@David\_Ross](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Ross)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 14:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/8 "2004-11-25T14:12:34Z")
Dave Burt wrote: > > Sure. This type of framework would be more flexible, but what about > > the people who use different languages? I definiately don't want to > > embed/use a ruby based gui frame work. Eclipse is an abomination > > to any work for me. This type of framework you describe can be > > real bothersome to people. There is no way to tackle the issue of GUIs > > because everybody has thier own choice. (ex. BSD vs. Linux) I could argue > > all day about the annoyances in each and every GUI toolkit out there, > > even WideStudio. The GUI toolkit choice is up to the user, if the develoer > > has a disagreement with design in the code... send patches. There is no > > thing as a perfect toolkit. > > > > David Ross > >     > > I disagree that it's unhelpful. > > Look at Swing - a minimum of native components, with many lightweight widgets based on these. This means loose binding to the platform and hence better/easier portability. I've to agree with everybody else on this small fact. Swing is slow as molasses, and everyone that creates a big apps with Java using guis knows how slow Java can be. I believe that MagicDraw UML is the program which is offering thier apps in a Java to C++ compiler due to the slowness of Java, the Swing is so bloated the program operates so slow its terrifying. \* all references to Java refer to Sun's slow implementation > Such a system would become a natural choice over existing frameworks for all-Ruby projects. > > Obviously, for projects that include Python, C, whatever, you're right that it's not ideal. I'm not sure how important this is, although, thinking about Java, it may be more important than I have considered it. > > I think I'd vote for XML-based systems (XUL or XAML) to deal with these problems rather well, if I had any experience with them. I've looked into XUL, and used it some. Its great for RAD. I've only used it in small projects with mozilla. There is actually a XUL generator for Python, but some people don't want thier apps open-source. Yes yes, ruby isnt byte encoded, but one could create the lib to the gui in another lanauge and link/load. > What about an XUL-interpreting framework for Parrot? \*grin\* > Cheers, > Dave David Ross > **···** > > -- > Hazzle free packages for Ruby? > RPA is available from [http://www.rubyarchive.org/](http://www.rubyarchive.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Burt2](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/dave_burt2/32/2036_2.png) [@Dave\_Burt2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Burt2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 13:03 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/9 "2004-11-25T13:03:06Z")
> Dave Burt ha scritto: > > > Look at Swing - a minimum of native components, with many lightweight > > widgets based on these. This means loose binding to the platform and > > hence better/easier portability. > > It seem to me that many people "hate" swing, consider it one of the main > reason think that java is slow, and generally think SWT is much better. I'm happy to leave the AWT/Swing debate to c.l.j; suffice it to say my view is Swing's API's far better designed (which is more important from toolkit user's perspective than how easy it is to port) > Anyway, I really don't think a real cross platform gui is possible. Why not? > Gtk, and wxWidget both use some basic things and build over them to gain > portability. > But even in this case you're requiring the user to install it, and stuff > like the platform's interface guideline would be messed up. > > I think that stuff like wxruby (or tk, wich I'm told can work with Aqua) > is the best you can get. I don't think anything we have now is the best you can get 🙂 Maybe the only practical approach to having a Portable Ruby GUI Framework (PRGF) is an incremental approach, getting the likes of wx, tk, maybe even Gtk, up to speed on the platforms they're behind on. Call me nuts, I just like the idea of a Ruby toolkit that works out of the box on Windows, Mac and \*nixes like so much of Ruby's useful libraries. > just my 0.02 euro Darn -- outbid! My AUD $0.02 is worth little more than half that, at current market rates. I guess you win 🙂 Cheers! Dave > **···** > > "gabriele renzi" \ wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Burt2](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/dave_burt2/32/2036_2.png) [@Dave\_Burt2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Burt2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 20:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/10 "2004-11-25T20:27:58Z")
D Burt :What about an XUL-interpreting framework for Parrot? D Ross : \*grin\* D Burt : I'm glad someone enjoyed it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Burt2](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/dave_burt2/32/2036_2.png) [@Dave\_Burt2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Burt2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 20:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/11 "2004-11-25T20:57:57Z")
"David Ross": > Swing is slow as molasses [...] > I've looked into XUL, and used it some. Its great for RAD. [...] > [\*]Some people don't want thier apps open-source.[\*] > Yes yes, ruby isnt byte encoded, but one could create the lib to > the gui in another lanauge and link/load. What about XUL for user-interface description with closed-source (native? Parrot?) application code? Is this sort of thing possible? ---
**Author:** ![Zach\_Dennis1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ea5d25/32.png) [@Zach\_Dennis1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Zach_Dennis1)\ **Post date:** [26 November 2004 04:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/12 "2004-11-26T04:06:57Z")
gabriele renzi wrote: > Dave Burt ha scritto: > > > Look at Swing - a minimum of native components, with many lightweight widgets based on these. This means loose binding to the platform and hence better/easier portability. > > It seem to me that many people "hate" swing, consider it one of the main reason think that java is slow, and generally think SWT is much better. Java isn't that slow. We use it for some applicationst that do some heavy market share calculation and graphical branding and it don't lag. Zach ---
**Author:** ![Zach\_Dennis1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ea5d25/32.png) [@Zach\_Dennis1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Zach_Dennis1)\ **Post date:** [26 November 2004 04:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/13 "2004-11-26T04:11:06Z")
David Ross wrote: > Dave Burt wrote: > > > > Sure. This type of framework would be more flexible, but what about > > > the people who use different languages? I definiately don't want to > > > embed/use a ruby based gui frame work. Eclipse is an abomination > > > to any work for me. This type of framework you describe can be > > > real bothersome to people. There is no way to tackle the issue of GUIs > > > because everybody has thier own choice. (ex. BSD vs. Linux) I could argue > > > all day about the annoyances in each and every GUI toolkit out there, > > > even WideStudio. The GUI toolkit choice is up to the user, if the develoer > > > has a disagreement with design in the code... send patches. There is no > > > thing as a perfect toolkit. > > > > > > David Ross > > >    > > > I disagree that it's unhelpful. > > > > Look at Swing - a minimum of native components, with many lightweight widgets based on these. This means loose binding to the platform and hence better/easier portability. > > I've to agree with everybody else on this small fact. Swing is slow > as molasses, and everyone that creates a big apps with Java using > guis knows how slow Java can be. I don't entirely agree here.   I believe that MagicDraw UML is > the program which is offering thier apps in a Java to C++ compiler > due to the slowness of Java, the Swing is so bloated the program > operates so slow its terrifying. Swing is bloated yes, but it is not as slow as you suggest. I disagree on reasons for developing software written in java which does heavy calculation and graphical manipulation. Zach ---
**Author:** ![Alexander\_Kellett2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@Alexander\_Kellett2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Alexander_Kellett2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 14:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/14 "2004-11-25T14:24:57Z")
> I'm happy to leave the AWT/Swing debate to c.l.j; suffice it to say my view > is Swing's API's far better designed (which is more important from toolkit > user's perspective than how easy it is to port) not awt. swt. > > Anyway, I really don't think a real cross platform gui is possible. > > Why not? because to target mac os x, windows, gnome, or kde, in \*every\* case you need an \*entirely\* different look and feel. this just isn't possible with the standard mechanisms used in gui creation. let me summarize:   layouts are \*just too low-level\* Alex > **···** > > On Nov 25, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Dave Burt wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Volkmann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mark\_Volkmann](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mark_Volkmann)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 15:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/15 "2004-11-25T15:36:30Z")
Quoting Dave Burt \: > Call me nuts, I just like the idea of a Ruby toolkit that works out of the > box on Windows, Mac and \*nixes like so much of Ruby's useful libraries. This is the state I'm hoping we reach at some point ... a one-click installer for all major platforms that includes the most commonly used GUI libraries. > **···** > > -- > R. Mark Volkmann > Partner, Object Computing, Inc. ---
**Author:** ![gabriele\_renzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e19b73/32.png) [@gabriele\_renzi](https://rubytalk.org/u/gabriele_renzi)\ **Post date:** [26 November 2004 10:42 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/16 "2004-11-26T10:42:58Z")
Zach Dennis ha scritto: > Java isn't that slow. We use it for some applicationst that do some heavy market share calculation and graphical branding and it don't lag. I agree, I just said that people usually think "mh.. this grey/violet gui is little responsive, the java virtua machine must be slow!". This happens to me at least one time a week, I'm sick of explaining it is swing not the jvm that is slowish 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Ross](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8e8cbc/32.png) [@David\_Ross](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Ross)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 15:45 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/17 "2004-11-25T15:45:42Z")
R. Mark Volkmann wrote: > Quoting Dave Burt \: > > > Call me nuts, I just like the idea of a Ruby toolkit that works out of the > > box on Windows, Mac and \*nixes like so much of Ruby's useful libraries. > >     > > This is the state I'm hoping we reach at some point ... a one-click installer > > for all major platforms that includes the most commonly used GUI libraries. That specific method would mean an insanely huge download. It would need to be split into seperate packages. You still have a limited interface like wxWidgets though, so for real work it just won't do unless its a simplistic application. David Ross > **···** > > -- > Hazzle free packages for Ruby? > RPA is available from [http://www.rubyarchive.org/](http://www.rubyarchive.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Burt2](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/dave_burt2/32/2036_2.png) [@Dave\_Burt2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Burt2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 20:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/18 "2004-11-25T20:47:57Z")
"Alexander Kellett" \: > > I'm happy to leave the AWT/Swing debate to c.l.j; suffice it to say my > > view > > is Swing's API's far better designed (which is more important from > > toolkit > > user's perspective than how easy it is to port) > > not awt. swt. Goes to show I should have left the Java bit alone. > > > Anyway, I really don't think a real cross platform gui is possible. > > > > Why not? > > because to target mac os x, windows, gnome, or kde, > in \*every\* case you need an \*entirely\* different look > and feel. this just isn't possible with the standard > mechanisms used in gui creation. > > let me summarize: > layouts are \*just too low-level\* I disagree that they inherently are. Consider web applications as an example of how a platform-independent GUI spec can be loaded in the platform's look-and-feel. Mozilla's XUL browsers extend this idea into the realm of usable interface-building. It's possible. Cheers, Dave > **···** > > > On Nov 25, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Dave Burt wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Lothar\_Scholz2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Lothar\_Scholz2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Lothar_Scholz2)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2004 22:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-guis-and-installation-effort/14967/19 "2004-11-25T22:09:34Z")
Hello Dave, > "Alexander Kellett" \: > > > > I'm happy to leave the AWT/Swing debate to c.l.j; suffice it to say my > > > view > > > is Swing's API's far better designed (which is more important from > > > toolkit > > > user's perspective than how easy it is to port) > > > > not awt. swt. > Goes to show I should have left the Java bit alone. > > > > Anyway, I really don't think a real cross platform gui is possible. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > because to target mac os x, windows, gnome, or kde, > > in \*every\* case you need an \*entirely\* different look > > and feel. this just isn't possible with the standard > > mechanisms used in gui creation. > > > > let me summarize: > > layouts are \*just too low-level\* > I disagree that they inherently are. > Consider web applications as an example of how a platform-independent GUI > spec can be loaded in the platform's look-and-feel. Mozilla's XUL browsers > extend this idea into the realm of usable interface-building. It's possible. No it's not. If you want to confirm to apples user interface guidelines you have to use exact spacing (12 pt here, 14 pt there, round help icon button to the right of a dialog, make cancel the default button not okay, .... ) and a specific way to layout fields in a dialog. Okay some of the MacOSX applications don't do this (even some of apple's own). Mozilla does not look really native to apple users. It has the same look but not the same feel. > **···** > > > > On Nov 25, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Dave Burt wrote: > > -- > Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com > Lothar Scholz [http://www.ruby-ide.com](http://www.ruby-ide.com) > CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's