I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
RubyScript. Any browsers support this? The main thing I don't like
about AJAX is the Javascript, but using RubyScript as a replacement
would be cool.
I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
RubyScript. Any browsers support this?
This worked for me in IE6:
<html>
<head>
<script for=window event=onload language=RubyScript>
@window.alert "Hello World !"
</script>
</head>
<body>Hello World!</body>
</html>
See:
http://arton.hp.infoseek.co.jp/index.html
http://www.mvps.org/scripting/languages/
dpersik@gmail.com wrote: I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
RubyScript. Any browsers support this? The main thing I don't like
about AJAX is the Javascript, but using RubyScript as a replacement
would be cool.
···
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals
dpersik@gmail.com wrote:
I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
RubyScript. Any browsers support this? The main thing I don't like
about AJAX is the Javascript, but using RubyScript as a replacement
would be cool.
JavaScript may be sweeter than you know.
http://www.crockford.com/javascript/little.html
http://interglacial.com/hoj/hoj.html
http://www.joeganley.com/code/jslisp.html
http://w3future.com/html/stories/hop.xml
James
···
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools
Of course, this will only work if the user has RubyScript installed on
their system - not necessarily practical for public web applications.
···
On 12/7/05, Dan Diebolt <dandiebolt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
RubyScript. Any browsers support this?This worked for me in IE6:
<html>
<head>
<script for=window event=onload language=RubyScript>
@window.alert "Hello World !"
</script>
</head>
<body>Hello World!</body>
</html>See:
http://arton.hp.infoseek.co.jp/index.html
http://www.mvps.org/scripting/languages/
dpersik@gmail.com wrote: I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
RubyScript. Any browsers support this? The main thing I don't like
about AJAX is the Javascript, but using RubyScript as a replacement
would be cool.---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals
--
Bill Atkins
I tried it in IE6 (Version: 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519),
didn't work. It did prompt me that "Active Content" was being blocked,
but after unblocking and refreshing there was still no popup alert.
(It didn't work in Firefox either, but I was expecting as much.)
Jacob Fugal
···
On 12/7/05, Dan Diebolt <dandiebolt@yahoo.com> wrote:
This worked for me in IE6:
<html>
<head>
<script for=window event=onload language=RubyScript>
@window.alert "Hello World !"
</script>
</head>
<body>Hello World!</body>
</html>
I tried it in IE6 (Version: 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519), didn't work
That is the exact version of IE6 I have so there must be another issue at play.
···
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
Possibly you already have some RubyScript plugin installed?
Jacob Fugal
···
On 12/7/05, Dan Diebolt <dandiebolt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I tried it in IE6 (Version: 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519), didn't work
That is the exact version of IE6 I have so there must be another issue at play.
Of course you have to install it - you only get VBScript and JavaScript functionality out of the IE box.
···
---------------------------------
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
Well, I think that's what the OP was referring to, whether any
browsers supported it "Out of the Box". While RubyScript is cool and
great, it's not very useful for a public site if you have to hope the
users have installed the plugin first.
What we need, rather -- since we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript
as the defacto standard -- is to continue to publicize the libraries
like Prototype that make working with JavaScript much more palatable
and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
Jacob Fugal
···
On 12/7/05, Dan Diebolt <dandiebolt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course you have to install it - you only get VBScript and JavaScript
functionality out of the IE box.
we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript ... publicize the libraries that make working with JavaScript much more palatable and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
In all practical terms you are stuck with JavaScript on the client.
But I am curious how this could be done - make working with JavaScript more Rubyesque. Unless the browser supports Ruby there isn't much you can do that is Rubyesque. You can send XML, YAML or JSON to the browser upon an xmlhttprequest but only the JavaScript engine can do something with it. Would sending YAML to a JavaScript enabled browser be considered Rubyesque?
"YAML originally took off in the Ruby community as a better XML ..."
http://ajaxian.com/archives/2005/11/json_yaml_its_g.html
I don't see RubyScript having any practical value over JavaScript client-side.
···
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
I disagree with being stuck with javascript. People are stuck with javascript
as a programmer stuck to php. You have a choice, and you need to force a user
to install it. Wide usage will get more attention. If you also look at the
Mozilla project, they are embedded Python stubs in for the next milestone so
it will be easy to use XUL+Python. I really would want this to be XUL+Ruby
though.
Tsume
···
On Thursday 08 December 2005 09:13 am, Jacob Fugal wrote:
Well, I think that's what the OP was referring to, whether any
browsers supported it "Out of the Box". While RubyScript is cool and
great, it's not very useful for a public site if you have to hope the
users have installed the plugin first.What we need, rather -- since we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript
as the defacto standard -- is to continue to publicize the libraries
like Prototype that make working with JavaScript much more palatable
and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
Jacob Fugal wrote:
Of course you have to install it - you only get VBScript and JavaScript
functionality out of the IE box.Well, I think that's what the OP was referring to, whether any
browsers supported it "Out of the Box". While RubyScript is cool and
great, it's not very useful for a public site if you have to hope the
users have installed the plugin first.What we need, rather -- since we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript
as the defacto standard -- is to continue to publicize the libraries
like Prototype that make working with JavaScript much more palatable
and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
The poorly-named Prototype.js helps hide developer interaction with JavaScript; you learn a set of library-specific calls, and you're done. You don't need to know much actual JavaScript, just someone's idea of a suitable API.
People who are going to write client-side Web code should just learn JavaScript. It isn't hard, it offers many things found in Ruby, and you'll know what your code is doing, and why, without loading 47k of library code before you've even started. Learn what JavaScript's 'prototype' is and what it can do. (Casual browsing of some JavaScript books, though, suggest that most authors don't even mention 'prototype', and tend to teach the language as if it were some Java or C variant. Sad.)
James
···
On 12/7/05, Dan Diebolt <dandiebolt@yahoo.com> wrote:
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools
Maybe a replacement to JavaScript is what Google had in mind when
hiring Guido (creator of Python)
we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript ... publicize the libraries that make working with JavaScript much more palatable and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
In all practical terms you are stuck with JavaScript on the client.
But I am curious how this could be done - make working with JavaScript more Rubyesque. Unless the browser supports Ruby there isn't much you can do that is Rubyesque. You can send XML, YAML or JSON to the browser upon an xmlhttprequest but only the JavaScript engine can do something with it. Would sending YAML to a JavaScript enabled browser be considered Rubyesque?
I think he was pointing out that javascript is actually quite a dynamically language. It has higher order functions, you can extend an object at runtime, etc.
···
On Dec 7, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Dan Diebolt wrote:
"YAML originally took off in the Ruby community as a better XML ..."
http://ajaxian.com/archives/2005/11/json_yaml_its_g.html
I don't see RubyScript having any practical value over JavaScript client-side.---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
There is a difference though. PHP is server side, so migrating away from it
only forces installation ONCE on the server side. Migrating away from Java
Script involves forcing every single client to install X. While that draws
attention, most users simply won't bother, or will attempt to get the
information via some other means. This is bad for especially commercial web
apps.
···
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 20:11, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
On Thursday 08 December 2005 09:13 am, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> Well, I think that's what the OP was referring to, whether any
> browsers supported it "Out of the Box". While RubyScript is cool and
> great, it's not very useful for a public site if you have to hope the
> users have installed the plugin first.
>
> What we need, rather -- since we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript
> as the defacto standard -- is to continue to publicize the libraries
> like Prototype that make working with JavaScript much more palatable
> and, in some ways, Rubyesque.I disagree with being stuck with javascript. People are stuck with
javascript as a programmer stuck to php. You have a choice, and you need to
force a user to install it. Wide usage will get more attention. If you also
look at the Mozilla project, they are embedded Python stubs in for the next
milestone so it will be easy to use XUL+Python. I really would want this to
be XUL+Ruby though.Tsume
four words: code that degrades gracefully
more explicit: Use code that degrades gracefully for people who don't
have Rubyscript plugins installed, and include some kind of "best viewed
with plugin X" indicator on the page. Everybody can still get all the
information needed that way without going somewhere else, and those who
go to the trouble of installing the indicated plugin will be rewarded
with a richer user experience.
···
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:48:57PM +0900, Kevin Brown wrote:
There is a difference though. PHP is server side, so migrating away from it
only forces installation ONCE on the server side. Migrating away from Java
Script involves forcing every single client to install X. While that draws
attention, most users simply won't bother, or will attempt to get the
information via some other means. This is bad for especially commercial web
apps.
--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.