# Ruby in Browsers? **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [7 February 2006 15:58 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700 "2006-02-07T15:58:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Petermichaux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/46a35a/32.png) [@Petermichaux](https://rubytalk.org/u/Petermichaux)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2006 15:58 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/1 "2006-02-07T15:58:26Z")
Hi, I've had to start using JavaScript to make a DHTML interface. After learning Ruby I feel like I'm taking a giant step back in productivity and fun by using JavaScript. PITA. Any moves out there to get Ruby imbeded in browsers? How about Ruby as a client-side scripting web standard? (Maybe it would have to be Ruby Light with the file accessors removed.) Thanks, Peter ---
**Author:** ![Gregory\_Seidman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Gregory\_Seidman](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gregory_Seidman)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2006 16:15 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/2 "2006-02-07T16:15:38Z")
} I've had to start using JavaScript to make a DHTML interface. After } learning Ruby I feel like I'm taking a giant step back in productivity } and fun by using JavaScript. PITA. That probably means you are using it wrong. Or you are running up against cross-browser incompatibilities. JavaScript is a very nice language when used properly. } Any moves out there to get Ruby imbeded in browsers? } } How about Ruby as a client-side scripting web standard? (Maybe it would } have to be Ruby Light with the file accessors removed.) The biggest problem with JavaScript is incompatible APIs across browsers. Adding Ruby to the mix would only make cross-browser compatibility more difficult. Unless you could magically get everyone out there to simultaneously switch to a browser that provided client-side Ruby scripting in exactly the same way, it would only add to the mess. If you really want client-side Ruby, start working on a Ruby-to-ActionScript (or Flash bytecode) compiler. } Thanks, } Peter --Greg > **···** > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:58:26AM +0900, [petermichaux@yahoo.com](mailto:petermichaux@yahoo.com) wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Mark\_Somerville](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mark_Somerville)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2006 16:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/3 "2006-02-07T16:44:26Z")
> } I've had to start using JavaScript to make a DHTML interface. After > } learning Ruby I feel like I'm taking a giant step back in productivity > } and fun by using JavaScript. PITA. I couldn't agree more. Writing Javascript is something I have no love for at all. > That probably means you are using it wrong. Or you are running up against > cross-browser incompatibilities. I could well be using it wrong. Maybe it is the browser inconsistencies. Maybe it's because I find it a horror to debug. Whatever it is, It's a car crash of a technology for me. Mark > **···** > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:58:26AM +0900, petermichaux@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 16:15, Gregory Seidman wrote: > > > JavaScript is a very nice language when > > used properly. > > > > } Any moves out there to get Ruby imbeded in browsers? > > } > > } How about Ruby as a client-side scripting web standard? (Maybe it would > > } have to be Ruby Light with the file accessors removed.) > > > > The biggest problem with JavaScript is incompatible APIs across browsers. > > Adding Ruby to the mix would only make cross-browser compatibility more > > difficult. Unless you could magically get everyone out there to > > simultaneously switch to a browser that provided client-side Ruby scripting > > in exactly the same way, it would only add to the mess. > > > > If you really want client-side Ruby, start working on a > > Ruby-to-ActionScript (or Flash bytecode) compiler. > > > > } Thanks, > > } Peter > > --Greg ---
**Author:** ![Petermichaux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/46a35a/32.png) [@Petermichaux](https://rubytalk.org/u/Petermichaux)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 00:38 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/4 "2006-02-08T00:38:21Z")
> The biggest problem with JavaScript is incompatible APIs across browsers. > Adding Ruby to the mix would only make cross-browser compatibility more > difficult. Unless you could magically get everyone out there to > simultaneously switch to a browser that provided client-side Ruby scripting > in exactly the same way, it would only add to the mess. What if the ruby community supplied the browser makers with a single interpreter that they could plug in? Yes it might take a few years for this to take wide spread effect but some applications can dictate the user's browser. I'm working on one right now. These apps could go Ruby earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Michal\_Suchanek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@Michal\_Suchanek](https://rubytalk.org/u/Michal_Suchanek)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 10:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/5 "2006-02-08T10:13:56Z")
That would be a great step back in compatibility. While you can compile Mozilla or Konqueror for almost any platform you choose, and both support JavaScript, the support for Flash is much worse. Flash is a proprietary technology, and the binary plugin to interpret it is available only for a handful of platforms. You can use it on OS X, win32, possibly win64 and wince, and x86 Linux. It is quite likely it will work in emulation on x86 NetBSD or x86\_64 Linux. But GNU/Linux on ppc, mips, alpha, Solaris on anything, or any other OS is quite hopeless. There is a free flash player in which next to nothing works, and I am not even sure it works as a browser plugin. I do not know waht is ActionScript. The situation with Java plugin is similar except Sun makes a version for Solaris as well. So I do not see any cross-platform browser scripting other than JavaScript. Thanks Michal > **···** > > On 2/7/06, Gregory Seidman \ wrote: > > > The biggest problem with JavaScript is incompatible APIs across browsers. > > Adding Ruby to the mix would only make cross-browser compatibility more > > difficult. Unless you could magically get everyone out there to > > simultaneously switch to a browser that provided client-side Ruby scripting > > in exactly the same way, it would only add to the mess. > > > > If you really want client-side Ruby, start working on a > > Ruby-to-ActionScript (or Flash bytecode) compiler. > > -- >              Support the freedom of music! > Maybe it's a weird genre .. but weird is \*not\* illegal. > Maybe next time they will send a special forces commando > to your picnic .. because they think you are weird. > [www.music-versus-guns.org](http://www.music-versus-guns.org)[http://en.policejnistat.cz](http://en.policejnistat.cz) ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Barczewski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jeff\_Barczewski](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jeff_Barczewski)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2006 17:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/6 "2006-02-07T17:25:40Z")
I agree, it would be nice if ruby could be used locally on the client as seamlessly as javascript. In the meantime there is a project called [http://www.kavascript.com/](http://www.kavascript.com/) which provides a way to write psudo ruby, run it through a compile step and generate javascript. This would probably only work for standalone javascript files and not embedded javascript. I don't know whether the benefits outweigh the extra compilation step, but it is worth a try to see. I can't comment further on the robustness of this project, nor have I used it yet myself, but if you try it out maybe you can post something back to the list about your experience. Blessings, Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_Smirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Jon\_Smirl](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jon_Smirl)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2006 21:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/7 "2006-02-07T21:10:42Z")
Venkman Javascript debugger makes things much easier in FIrefox. > **[Venkman](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Mozilla/Venkman)** > > Venkman is the code name for Mozilla's JavaScript Debugger. It aims to provide a powerful JavaScript debugging environment for Mozilla based browsers namely Firefox, Netscape 7.x/9.x and SeaMonkey. Note that it is not included in the Gecko-based... The Web Developer extension is also useful: [http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/](http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/) > **···** > > -- > Jon Smirl > [jonsmirl@gmail.com](mailto:jonsmirl@gmail.com) ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_Stadig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5fc32e/32.png) [@Paul\_Stadig](https://rubytalk.org/u/Paul_Stadig)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 01:08 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/8 "2006-02-08T01:08:22Z")
I've toyed with the idea of writing a plug-in for web browsers that allowed you to run "Ruby Applets." The most primitive idea would be to just call the Ruby intepreter whenever it encountered a .rb download or an \ or whatever the kids are using nowadays. A more sophisticated version could provide some interface to the browser objects. Security would be nice. Is there any such project out there? Paul petermichaux@yahoo.com wrote: > **···** > > > What if the ruby community supplied the browser makers with a single > > interpreter that they could plug in? Yes it might take a few years for > > this to take wide spread effect but some applications can dictate the > > user's browser. I'm working on one right now. These apps could go Ruby > > earlier. ---
**Author:** ![MenTaLguY1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/97f17d/32.png) [@MenTaLguY1](https://rubytalk.org/u/MenTaLguY1)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 16:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/9 "2006-02-08T16:29:27Z")
Quoting Michal Suchanek \: > I do not know what is ActionScript. ActionScript is Flash's embedded dialect of ECMAScript (i.e. JavaScript). In actual .swf files, it's bytecode rather than raw text, though. -mental ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vallner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@David\_Vallner](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vallner)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 21:40 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/10 "2006-02-08T21:40:08Z")
Dňa Streda 08 Február 2006 11:13 Michal Suchanek napísal: > \> The biggest problem with JavaScript is incompatible APIs across browsers. > \> Adding Ruby to the mix would only make cross-browser compatibility more > \> difficult. Unless you could magically get everyone out there to > \> simultaneously switch to a browser that provided client-side Ruby > \> scripting in exactly the same way, it would only add to the mess. > \> > \> If you really want client-side Ruby, start working on a > \> Ruby-to-ActionScript (or Flash bytecode) compiler. > > That would be a great step back in compatibility. While you can > compile Mozilla or Konqueror for almost any platform you choose, and > both support JavaScript, the support for Flash is much worse. > Flash is a proprietary technology, and the binary plugin to interpret > it is available only for a handful of platforms. You can use it on OS > X, win32, possibly win64 and wince, and x86 Linux. It is quite likely > it will work in emulation on x86 NetBSD or x86\_64 Linux. But GNU/Linux > on ppc, mips, alpha, Solaris on anything, or any other OS is quite > hopeless. > There is a free flash player in which next to nothing works, and I am > not even sure it works as a browser plugin. > I do not know waht is ActionScript. The situation with Java plugin is > similar except Sun makes a version for Solaris as well. > > So I do not see any cross-platform browser scripting other than JavaScript. > > Thanks > > Michal Personally, I'd murder if I could get away with either an Applet or Flash more often. The proprietary bit -is- a pain, but at least you get something of a consistent interface instead of the godawful mess of browser inconsistencies that are out there. Admittedly less than there used to be, but you can and should still expect bugs with basic issues even when you have to support IE6, which happily selectively ignores W3C standards with reckless abandon. The less-than-easy-reading browser documentation doesn't really help either. And don't even get me started on box models, the way any JS brings Konqueror to a grinding halt, and proprietary specialised set-top-box web browsers with completely random (non-)support of features. David Vallner > **···** > > > On 2/7/06, Gregory Seidman \ wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Guillaume\_Marcais1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Guillaume\_Marcais1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Guillaume_Marcais1)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 03:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/11 "2006-02-08T03:18:36Z")
Paul Stadig wrote: > I've toyed with the idea of writing a plug-in for web browsers that > allowed you to run "Ruby Applets." The most primitive idea would be to > just call the Ruby intepreter whenever it encountered a .rb download or > an \ or whatever the kids are using nowadays. > > A more sophisticated version could provide some interface to the > browser objects. Security would be nice. > > Is there any such project out there? Maybe a source of inspiration can be the TCL plugin ([URL Not Found](http://www.tcl.tk/software/plugin/%5C)). But if I remember some discussion in TCL conferences, to get browser manufacturer to include this particular plug-in was just a pie in the sky, and installing a plug-in to see a web site seems too high of a hurdle for many (most?) average users. Don't get discouraged by it though. Go out and embed ruby in a plug-in if you feel the urge. It could in did be a lot of fun! Guillaume. > **···** > > > Paul > > > > petermichaux@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > What if the ruby community supplied the browser makers with a single > > > interpreter that they could plug in? Yes it might take a few years for > > > this to take wide spread effect but some applications can dictate the > > > user's browser. I'm working on one right now. These apps could go Ruby > > > earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Tsume](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df788c/32.png) [@Tsume](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tsume)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 05:04 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/12 "2006-02-08T05:04:58Z")
> I've toyed with the idea of writing a plug-in for web browsers that > allowed you to run "Ruby Applets." The most primitive idea would be to > just call the Ruby intepreter whenever it encountered a .rb download or > an \ or whatever the kids are using nowadays. > > A more sophisticated version could provide some interface to the > browser objects. Security would be nice. We still need to get rid of the white elephant which is standing in the middle of the room. yes, you know the one.. the one which beats the 800lb ugly gorilla, the slow side of ruby. I think this is a need before any type of applet interface is made, and even so, one will need to create or use some type of custom toolkit which can be added with a nice API. A Tk based solution would be good since it works everywhere. > Is there any such project out there? > > Paul Tsume > **···** > > On Wednesday 08 February 2006 10:08 am, Paul Stadig wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Anibal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Anibal](https://rubytalk.org/u/Anibal)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 11:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/13 "2006-02-08T11:23:22Z")
Thanks a lot for those pointers! Aníbal Rojas [http://www.lacaraoscura.com/](http://www.lacaraoscura.com/) [http://www.vp.com.ve/](http://www.vp.com.ve/) ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_Stadig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5fc32e/32.png) [@Paul\_Stadig](https://rubytalk.org/u/Paul_Stadig)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 14:58 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/14 "2006-02-08T14:58:22Z")
I wouldn't be interested in getting browser manufacturers to include the plug-in immediately. It would be rare to get something that would have a hard takeoff like that. The idea would be to do something similar to Java and the Java plug-in. If people like it then they use it. If they don't, then whatever. If it get's popular, then maybe the browser manufacturers would include it. In cases where a person has control over such things they could use Ruby and the Ruby plug-in instead of Java. In other cases, use Java or something that the browser manufacturers include automatically. I just thought it would be a cool idea. It seems possible. It would be one way to escape from Java hell. Paul ---
**Author:** ![Gonzalo\_Rubio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/97f17d/32.png) [@Gonzalo\_Rubio](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gonzalo_Rubio)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2006 15:33 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-in-browsers/24700/15 "2006-02-08T15:33:24Z")
Paul Stadig wrote: > I wouldn't be interested in getting browser manufacturers to include > the plug-in immediately. It would be rare to get something that would > have a hard takeoff like that. The idea would be to do something > similar to Java and the Java plug-in. If people like it then they use > it. If they don't, then whatever. If it get's popular, then maybe the > browser manufacturers would include it. > > In cases where a person has control over such things they could use > Ruby and the Ruby plug-in instead of Java. In other cases, use Java or > something that the browser manufacturers include automatically. I just > thought it would be a cool idea. It seems possible. It would be one way > to escape from Java hell. > > Paul or may be if someone follows the idea for Ruby 2.0 to compile into Java Bytecode it would be directly supported into browsers. I know Matz said Rite won't generate Java Bytecode, but there are people out there that want to follow that path. > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/\](http://www.ruby-forum.com/%5C).