# The definitive GUI for Ruby **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [4 October 2005 11:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306 "2005-10-04T11:51:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/c4cdca/32.png) [@\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://rubytalk.org/u/_Eustaquio_Rangel_de)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 11:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/1 "2005-10-04T11:51:54Z")
Hello there. I'm wondering about some things here. Everytime I talk about Ruby to programmers of other languages, they ask "but what is the Ruby official GUI?". Ok, I know that we have some really good options on GUIs - GTK, Qt, etc, and we use the one we like most - but this kind of freedom sometimes can looks like a missing "way to do that", at least for the biggest part of those guys, and, let me confess, sometimes I stay confused about this question also, because there are really good choices and no time available to test it all. I'll make some apps and I'm still with doubts about what option to use! I'm just wondering if will not be a good (or horrible!) idea to have an "official" Ruby GUI (not Tk, please! some more cute components 馃槈 to make clear to people what can be their first option to use when migrating their apps from some other language. As Rails is \*the\* Ruby option for web development, I think the apps GUI is still some kind of losing the focus ... What you guys think about? What could be our answer to that initial question? Best regards, - -- - ---------------------------- Eust谩quio "TaQ" Rangel [eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com](mailto:eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com) [http://beam.to/taq](http://beam.to/taq) Usu谩rio GNU/Linux no. 224050 ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Gutierrez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecb155/32.png) [@Alan\_Gutierrez](https://rubytalk.org/u/Alan_Gutierrez)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 12:05 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/2 "2005-10-04T12:05:05Z")
\* Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr. \ [2005-10-04 07:52]: > I'm wondering about some things here. > > Everytime I talk about Ruby to programmers of other languages, > they ask "but what is the Ruby official GUI?". > What you guys think about? What could be our answer to that > initial question?     [http://engrm.com/wiki/Refresh](http://engrm.com/wiki/Refresh)     Cheers. > **路路路** > > -- > Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com - [http://engrm.com/blogometer/](http://engrm.com/blogometer/) ---
**Author:** ![Kirk\_Haines](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Kirk\_Haines](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kirk_Haines)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 12:21 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/3 "2005-10-04T12:21:29Z")
No. Rails isn't the "the" Ruby option for web development. It is \_a\_ Ruby option for web development. It's success has come about largely because of DHH's hard work, time, and marketting perseverance on a capable product. It's not the only choice, though, or even necessarily the best, depending on one's needs. The situation with GUI frameworks is similar. There are pros and cons with every one of them, so the choice of GUI depends on one's goals. An official GUI for Ruby would be a bad idea, just as an official web development framework for Ruby would be a bad idea. Better would be a good, comprehensive, relatively impartial summary of Ruby GUI options, perhaps with runnable examples available for download, so that the GUI framework landscape is clearer. There are a couple pages on the rubygarden.org wiki about this. The most complete one that I know of is > **[WebMD - Better information. Better health.](https://www.webmd.com/?ComparingGuiToolkits)** > > The leading source for trustworthy and timely health and medical news and information. Providing credible health information, supportive community, and educational services by blending award-winning expertise in content, community services, expert... But it stops short of what, IMHO, would be ideal for a one stop Ruby GUI options reference. Kirk Haines > **路路路** > > On Tuesday 04 October 2005 5:51 am, Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr. wrote: > > > I'm just wondering if will not be a good (or horrible!) idea to have an > > "official" Ruby GUI (not Tk, please! some more cute components 馃槈 to make > > clear to people what can be their first option to use when migrating their > > apps from some other language. As Rails is \*the\* Ruby option for web > > development, I think the apps GUI is still some kind of losing the focus > > ... ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler5](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/austin_ziegler5/32/1985_2.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 12:22 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/4 "2005-10-04T12:22:35Z")
> Everytime I talk about Ruby to programmers of other languages, they ask "but > what is the Ruby official GUI?". There's no such thing, and that's a good thing. > I'm just wondering if will not be a good (or horrible!) idea to have an > "official" Ruby GUI (not Tk, please! some more cute components 馃槈 to make clear > to people what can be their first option to use when migrating their apps from > some other language. As Rails is \*the\* Ruby option for web development, I think > the apps GUI is still some kind of losing the focus ... Sorry, but Rails is not "the" option or even the "official" option. Rails just happens to be the most popular option. I'm sure that Kirk Haines and George Moschovitis and anyone else who works on web application frameworks would \*love\* to hear that Rails is officially the Ruby web framework. It might even surprise DHH. > What you guys think about? What could be our answer to that initial question? "Ruby doesn't have one, because it doesn't need one. If you're developing for MacOS X, you need Cocoa. Ruby does that. Ruby also supports native Windows MFC development and Qt and Gtk as well." -austin > **路路路** > > On 10/4/05, Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr. \ wrote: > -- > Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com >                \* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Howell2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@Dave\_Howell2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Howell2)\ **Post date:** [5 October 2005 09:58 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/5 "2005-10-05T09:58:17Z")
As somebody who's much more "a serious user who programs small things" rather than a professional programmer, and a Mac user, I can tell you now that any app that tried to get me to use some generic GUI instead of using Aqua is an app I wouldn't use. GUI design is all about everything being exactly where it's supposed to be. Buttons that work they way they always work. Menus where "File," "Help" and so on are in the same place, and do the same things, every time. A "universal" GUI could get close, but getting close just means it'll be insanely annoying because of the little things that aren't exactly right. Languages don't get to have "official" GUIs. That's the OS's prerogative these days. > **路路路** > > On Oct 4, 2005, at 4:51, Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr. wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hello there. > > > > I'm wondering about some things here. > > > > Everytime I talk about Ruby to programmers of other languages, they ask "but > > what is the Ruby official GUI?". ---
**Author:** ![Kirk\_Haines](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Kirk\_Haines](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kirk_Haines)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 12:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/6 "2005-10-04T12:24:50Z")
> \* Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr. \ [2005-10-04 07:52]: > \> Everytime I talk about Ruby to programmers of other languages, > \> they ask "but what is the Ruby official GUI?". > \> > \> What you guys think about? What could be our answer to that > \> initial question? > >     [http://engrm.com/wiki/Refresh](http://engrm.com/wiki/Refresh) Now, be fair. Refresh looks like it has some admirable goals, but it is still vapor. It is not yet even a valid choice for a GUI framework, let alone one that has a chance to rise to prominence. Kirk Haines > **路路路** > > On Tuesday 04 October 2005 6:05 am, Alan Gutierrez wrote: ---
**Author:** ![\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/c4cdca/32.png) [@\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://rubytalk.org/u/_Eustaquio_Rangel_de)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 12:30 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/7 "2005-10-04T12:30:48Z")
> No. Rails isn't the "the" Ruby option for web > development. It is \_a\_ Ruby > option for web development. It's success has come > about largely because of > DHH's hard work, time, and marketting perseverance > on a capable product. > It's not the only choice, though, or even > necessarily the best, depending on > one's needs. Well, you got the idea. 馃檪 I was talking about all the hype about Rails. We have a well-know and good product to talk about at least on a first moment. So people can say "oh, I heard about it". Later, when we started the talk with a common know product, we can talk about the other ones. > There are a couple pages on the rubygarden.org wiki > about this. The most > complete one that I know of is > [http://rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits](http://rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits) Thanks for the URL. Best regards, > **路路路** > > --- Kirk Haines \ wrote: > > ---------------------------- > Eust谩quio "TaQ" Rangel > eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com > > > **[The easiest way to create, record and stream live video - Beings](https://beings.com)** > > > > Professional live streaming for marketers. Create, record and stream high-quality live video without being an expert. > > Usu谩rio GNU/Linux no. 224050 ---
**Author:** ![\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/c4cdca/32.png) [@\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://rubytalk.org/u/_Eustaquio_Rangel_de)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 12:33 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/8 "2005-10-04T12:33:58Z")
I answered Kirk right now. 馃檪 Sorry if I was not clear, I was just trying to mention all the hype about Rails and as it is a well know product these days. Not that I consider it the best web framework. I can't talk about that, I never used any of the options available. Best regards, > **路路路** > > --- Austin Ziegler \ wrote: > > > Sorry, but Rails is not "the" option or even the > > "official" option. > > Rails just happens to be the most popular option. > > I'm sure that Kirk > > Haines and George Moschovitis and anyone else who > > works on web > > application frameworks would \*love\* to hear that > > Rails is officially > > the Ruby web framework. It might even surprise DHH. > > ---------------------------- > Eust谩quio "TaQ" Rangel > eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com > > > **[The easiest way to create, record and stream live video - Beings](https://beings.com)** > > > > Professional live streaming for marketers. Create, record and stream high-quality live video without being an expert. > > Usu谩rio GNU/Linux no. 224050 ---
**Author:** ![\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/c4cdca/32.png) [@\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://rubytalk.org/u/_Eustaquio_Rangel_de)\ **Post date:** [5 October 2005 11:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/9 "2005-10-05T11:49:04Z")
> A "universal" GUI could get close, but getting close > just means it'll > be insanely annoying because of the little things > that aren't exactly > right. Millimeter stuff. 馃檪 > Languages don't get to have "official" GUIs. That's > the OS's > prerogative these days. I don't agree with that. Java have Swing. And some others, right, but people focus on it. Does not means it's perfect, but it's the focus there. And use to work fine on a lot of OS's. I mean, maybe not a sooooo official (for programmer, for Sun it is), but is a start point. Tk is still too ugly for make programmers that are migrating. 馃檪 Best regards, > **路路路** > > --- Dave Howell \ wrote: > > ---------------------------- > Eust谩quio "TaQ" Rangel > eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com > > > **[The easiest way to create, record and stream live video - Beings](https://beings.com)** > > > > Professional live streaming for marketers. Create, record and stream high-quality live video without being an expert. > > Usu谩rio GNU/Linux no. 224050 ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_Morin1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce7236/32.png) [@Rich\_Morin1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rich_Morin1)\ **Post date:** [5 October 2005 17:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/10 "2005-10-05T17:47:41Z")
Well, actually, you use non-Aqua GUIs all the time. Every web site offers an unknown combination of HTML, image maps, AJAX, etc. That said, I agree that having consistent look and feel on the desktop is very useful. You may be interested to know about   RubyCocoa - A Ruby/Objective-C Bridge for Mac OS X with Cocoa   [RubyCocoa - Documentation](http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/doc) RubyCocoa seems to be an active project, so I presume that it actually lets Ruby coders produce Cocoa apps, using the Interface Builder, etc. My experience with CamelBones (which does the same sort of thing for Perl) leads me to suspect that the experience is not seamless:    \* Objective-C has its own naming conventions and method invocation       syntax, which are quite different from those used by Ruby, Python,       etc. In CamelBones, this means that the programmer has to look up       methods by "translated" names, etc.    \* Apple hasn't shown any great interest in supporting any languages       other than Objective-C for Cocoa programming. They wave a hand in       the direction of Java, from time to time, but ObjC is definitely       the "blessed" language.    \* CamelBones ran into problems when the version of Perl changed. I       don't know if RubyCocoa has similar "robustness" issues. I would be happy to hear comments from any RubyCocoa users, as I've been considering trying it out at some point... -r > **路路路** > > At 6:58 PM +0900 10/5/05, Dave Howell wrote: > > > ... any app that tried to get me to use some generic GUI instead > > of using Aqua is an app I wouldn't use. ... > > -- > email: rdm@cfcl.com; phone: +1 650-873-7841 > [http://www.cfcl.com](http://www.cfcl.com) - Canta Forda Computer Laboratory > [http://www.cfcl.com/Meta](http://www.cfcl.com/Meta) - The FreeBSD Browser, Meta Project, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Freeze2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@Jim\_Freeze2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Freeze2)\ **Post date:** [5 October 2005 20:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/11 "2005-10-05T20:17:14Z")
follow to convert from OC to Ruby. For example, from the tutorial:   [oPanel runModalForDirectory:self file:nil types nil] becomes   oPanel.runModalForDirectory\_file\_types(self, nil, nil) "The other technique can be used to make a little more sense of method names that are extremely long. Using this technique, the method name consists of everything in the Objective-C method's name up to the first detached parameter name. The rest of the parameter names are moved into the argument list. Thus, every argument after the first is prefaced with another argument that is a Ruby symbol with the same name as the parameter it represents. It sounds confusing, I know, but the example below shows you how easy it is once you get used to the syntax." And, when standard calls return an NSArray or NSString, just use #to\_a and #to\_s to convert them to ruby. > **路路路** > > On 10/5/05, Rich Morin \ wrote: > > > You may be interested to know about > > > >   RubyCocoa - A Ruby/Objective-C Bridge for Mac OS X with Cocoa > >   [RubyCocoa - Documentation](http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/doc) > > > >    \* Objective-C has its own naming conventions and method invocation > >       syntax, which are quite different from those used by Ruby, Python, > >       etc. In CamelBones, this means that the programmer has to look up > >       methods by "translated" names, etc. > > From my limited experience, there is a straightforward pattern to > -- > Jim Freeze ---
**Author:** ![\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/c4cdca/32.png) [@\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://rubytalk.org/u/_Eustaquio_Rangel_de)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 12:35 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/12 "2005-10-04T12:35:23Z")
Yes, seems to be a very good idea, but it's really not the example I was trying to find to tell people about GUI. Maybe when it's ready. 馃檪 Best regards, > **路路路** > > --- Kirk Haines \ wrote: > > > Now, be fair. Refresh looks like it has some > > admirable goals, but it is still > > vapor. It is not yet even a valid choice for a GUI > > framework, let alone one > > that has a chance to rise to prominence. > > ---------------------------- > Eust谩quio "TaQ" Rangel > eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com > > > **[The easiest way to create, record and stream live video - Beings](https://beings.com)** > > > > Professional live streaming for marketers. Create, record and stream high-quality live video without being an expert. > > Usu谩rio GNU/Linux no. 224050 ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Gutierrez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecb155/32.png) [@Alan\_Gutierrez](https://rubytalk.org/u/Alan_Gutierrez)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 13:03 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/13 "2005-10-04T13:03:12Z")
\* Kirk Haines \ [2005-10-04 08:25]: > **路路路** > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2005 6:05 am, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > \> \* Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr. \ [2005-10-04 > > 07:52]: > > > > \> \> Everytime I talk about Ruby to programmers of other languages, > > \> \> they ask "but what is the Ruby official GUI?". > > \> \> > > \> \> What you guys think about? What could be our answer to that > > \> \> initial question? > > \> > > \> [http://engrm.com/wiki/Refresh](http://engrm.com/wiki/Refresh) > > > > Now, be fair. Refresh looks like it has some admirable goals, but > > it is still vapor. It is not yet even a valid choice for a GUI > > framework, let alone one that has a chance to rise to prominence. > >     It's a week old, if that's what you mean. 馃檪 > >     Seriously, I'm just letting people know in care they're >     interested. > >     Cheers. > > -- > Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com - [http://engrm.com/blogometer/](http://engrm.com/blogometer/) ---
**Author:** ![Robert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e95f7d/32.png) [@Robert](https://rubytalk.org/u/Robert)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 13:41 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/14 "2005-10-04T13:41:48Z")
Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira J wrote: > **路路路** > > > --- Kirk Haines \ wrote: > > > > > No. Rails isn't the "the" Ruby option for web > > > development. It is \_a\_ Ruby > > > option for web development. It's success has come > > > about largely because of > > > DHH's hard work, time, and marketting perseverance > > > on a capable product. > > > It's not the only choice, though, or even > > > necessarily the best, depending on > > > one's needs. > > > > Well, you got the idea. 馃檪 I was talking about all > > the hype about Rails. We have a well-know and good > > product to talk about at least on a first moment. So > > people can say "oh, I heard about it". > > > > Later, when we started the talk with a common know > > product, we can talk about the other ones. > > > > > There are a couple pages on the rubygarden.org wiki > > > about this. The most > > > complete one that I know of is > > > [http://rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits](http://rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits) > > Is it possible to add a table with feature vs. UI toolkit so people can > quickly check them against each other? > >     robert ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Hobbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@Jeff\_Hobbs](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jeff_Hobbs)\ **Post date:** [5 October 2005 18:06 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/15 "2005-10-05T18:06:49Z")
Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira J wrote: > Tk is still too ugly for make programmers that are > migrating. 馃檪 Tk is only ugly if that's the way you like it. You have a full set of themed widgets available now that give you native look and feel, with all the same dynamic control and general ease of use that Tk has always provided. All this on Aqua, Win32 and X11 (even Windows/CE). Some screenshots of Tk apps that try not to be ugly: The Perl Dev Kit and Tcl Dev Kit UIs: > **[ActiveState Community](https://community.activestate.com)** > > Community support for users of the ActiveState Platform. > **[ActiveState Community](https://community.activestate.com)** > > Community support for users of the ActiveState Platform. Tk on Win/CE (I know that the Perl/Tcl::Tk use this too): > **[iFile: a little file system browser](https://wiki.tcl-lang.org/page/iFile%3A+a+little+file+system+browser)** > > Tclers wiki Coccinella: [http://hem.fyristorg.com/matben/](http://hem.fyristorg.com/matben/) [http://hem.fyristorg.com/matben/examples/index.html](http://hem.fyristorg.com/matben/examples/index.html) An installer builder: [http://installbase.sourceforge.net/screenshots.shtml](http://installbase.sourceforge.net/screenshots.shtml) An example of improving a Tk app by "going native": > **[Going Native with Komodo's GUI Builder](https://wiki.tcl-lang.org/page/Going+Native+with+Komodo%27s+GUI+Builder)** > > Tclers wiki > **路路路** > > -- >    Jeff Hobbs, The Tk Guy >    [http://www.ActiveState.com/](http://www.ActiveState.com/), a division of Sophos ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Baldwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e95f7d/32.png) [@Dave\_Baldwin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [6 October 2005 07:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/16 "2005-10-06T07:48:55Z")
> > You may be interested to know about > > > >   RubyCocoa - A Ruby/Objective-C Bridge for Mac OS X with Cocoa > >   [RubyCocoa - Documentation](http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/doc) > > > >    \* Objective-C has its own naming conventions and method invocation > >       syntax, which are quite different from those used by Ruby, Python, > >       etc. In CamelBones, this means that the programmer has to look up > >       methods by "translated" names, etc. > > From my limited experience, there is a straightforward pattern to > follow to convert from OC to Ruby. For example, from the tutorial: > >   [oPanel runModalForDirectory:self file:nil types nil] > > becomes > >   oPanel.runModalForDirectory\_file\_types(self, nil, nil) Or alternatively: oPanel.runModalForDirectory(self, :file, nil :types, nil] which I think is often clearer and preserves the parameter type (recorded as a symbol) by the actual parameter. My limited experience has been that RubyCocoa is very easy to use and there isn't much to learn to map between the ruby and objective c domains. Getting to grips with Cocoa is much harder but at least with RubyCocoa all the memory management headaches go away. Dave. > **路路路** > > On 5 Oct 2005, at 21:17, Jim Freeze wrote: > > > On 10/5/05, Rich Morin \ wrote: > > > "The other technique can be used to make a little more sense of method > > names that are extremely long. Using this technique, the method name > > consists of everything in the Objective-C method's name up to the > > first detached parameter name. The rest of the parameter names are > > moved into the argument list. Thus, every argument after the first is > > prefaced with another argument that is a Ruby symbol with the same > > name as the parameter it represents. It sounds confusing, I know, but > > the example below shows you how easy it is once you get used to the > > syntax." > > > > And, when standard calls return an NSArray or NSString, just use > > #to\_a and #to\_s to convert them to ruby. > > > > -- > > Jim Freeze ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Howell2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@Dave\_Howell2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Howell2)\ **Post date:** [6 October 2005 12:01 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/17 "2005-10-06T12:01:07Z")
> > ... any app that tried to get me to use some generic GUI instead > > of using Aqua is an app I wouldn't use. ... > > Well, actually, you use non-Aqua GUIs all the time. But my definition of "application" doesn't include web sites. Yours might. 馃檪 > You may be interested to know about > > RubyCocoa - A Ruby/Objective-C Bridge for Mac OS X with Cocoa Actually, I've been using RubyCocoa for some months. > My experience with CamelBones (which does the same sort of thing for > Perl) leads me to suspect that the experience is not seamless: > >   \* Objective-C has its own naming conventions and method invocation >      syntax, which are quite different from those used by Ruby, Python, >      etc. In CamelBones, this means that the programmer has to look up >      methods by "translated" names, etc. The developer came up with two different methods for mapping. I only learned one of them, because it's so easy. To grab a random sample out of "Cocoa Programming for Mac OSX"   - (void)drawAtPoint:(NSPoint)aPoint     withAttributes:(NSDictionary \*)attribs should appear in Ruby as   def drawAtPoint\_withAttributes(aPoint, attribs)     blah blah blah   end Interface Builder will 'magically' fill in ObjC skeletons for you in XCode, but you have to do that yourself in Ruby. Since that basically means that you don't get   def YourObjectNameHere(something)   end typed for you, I really don't think that's too much of a loss. I am occasionally tripped up when I don't get a Cocoa object turned back into a Ruby one, but that's because it's \_almost\_ always handled by RubyCocoa. RubyCocoa's still chasing some of the more recent and esoteric features. "Bindings" are not entirely smooth, and "Core Data" (from Tiger) depends on Bindings. But my background has been using XCode with AppleScript, and Ruby and RubyCocoa are doing much better than the AppleScript Studio support from Apple. RubyCocoa does teach XCode do to syntactic coloring and procedural bookmarking and other stuff. Overall, I like it. > I would be happy to hear comments from any RubyCocoa users, as I've been > considering trying it out at some point... Try rubycocoa-talk@lists.sourceforge.net. They're very nice and helpful, even when I've been rather grumpy and cross from being tortured by the installers for Ruby, RubyCocoa, Rails, RubyAEOSA, and RubyGems. I don't think I"ve ever had a Ruby[whatever] install itself smoothly the first time, with the single exception of whoever created the Ruby 1.8.2 installer that uses the Mac's own installation system. That, thank the stars, actually worked right the first time. > **路路路** > > On Oct 5, 2005, at 10:47, Rich Morin wrote: > > > At 6:58 PM +0900 10/5/05, Dave Howell wrote: ---
**Author:** ![\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/c4cdca/32.png) [@\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://rubytalk.org/u/_Eustaquio_Rangel_de)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 13:51 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/18 "2005-10-04T13:51:36Z")
Very good idea. Best regards, > **路路路** > > --- Robert Klemme \ wrote: > > > Is it possible to add a table with feature vs. UI > > toolkit so people can > > quickly check them against each other? > > ---------------------------- > Eust谩quio "TaQ" Rangel > eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com > > > **[The easiest way to create, record and stream live video - Beings](https://beings.com)** > > > > Professional live streaming for marketers. Create, record and stream high-quality live video without being an expert. > > Usu谩rio GNU/Linux no. 224050 ---
**Author:** ![Guillaume\_Marcais1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Guillaume\_Marcais1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Guillaume_Marcais1)\ **Post date:** [4 October 2005 19:27 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/19 "2005-10-04T19:27:33Z")
One feature I'd like to see mention is the ability for the UI toolkit library to be embedded in binary distribution, like rubyscript2exe and a few others do. I know wxruby plays well with rubyscript2exe but not Tk, and for me that rules Tk out. I don't know about the other and it would be nice to know. Guillaume. > **路路路** > > On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 22:41 +0900, Robert Klemme wrote: > > > \>\> There are a couple pages on the rubygarden.org wiki > > \>\> about this. The most > > \>\> complete one that I know of is > > \>\> [http://rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits](http://rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits) > > > > Is it possible to add a table with feature vs. UI toolkit so people can > > quickly check them against each other? ---
**Author:** ![\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/c4cdca/32.png) [@\_Eustaquio\_Rangel\_de](https://rubytalk.org/u/_Eustaquio_Rangel_de)\ **Post date:** [5 October 2005 18:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306/20 "2005-10-05T18:12:41Z")
--- Jeff Hobbs \ wrote: > Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira J wrote: > Tk is only ugly if that's the way you like it. You > have a > full set of themed widgets available now that give > you > native look and feel, with all the same dynamic > control and > general ease of use that Tk has always provided. > All this > on Aqua, Win32 and X11 (even Windows/CE). Some > screenshots > of Tk apps that try not to be ugly: > An example of improving a Tk app by "going native": > [Going Native with Komodo's GUI Builder](http://wiki.tcl.tk/14522) Oh boy, was me that did not checked all its features or Tk has evolved a lot on the last years? Will take a look on all that stuff. Thanks a lot for the links, Jeff. I hope you didn't get the "ugly" thing as an insult. Best regards, > **路路路** > > ---------------------------- > Eust谩quio "TaQ" Rangel > eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com > > > **[The easiest way to create, record and stream live video - Beings](https://beings.com)** > > > > Professional live streaming for marketers. Create, record and stream high-quality live video without being an expert. > > Usu谩rio GNU/Linux no. 224050 [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/the-definitive-gui-for-ruby/21306.md?page=2)