I have looked at these three GUI's for Ruby, and would like to know
which the community feels is the better of these three (or is there a
better one that I haven't listed). I am building small applications
with UI's that are not too complicated, and wrapping the apps into
.exe files with rubyscript2exe. I like the smaller size of the final
product when using Tk, but the native look of Fx and Wx. What has been
your experience with GUI toolkits for Ruby?
Jayson
Jayson Williams wrote:
I have looked at these three GUI's for Ruby, and would like to know
which the community feels is the better of these three
There isn't a unified view held by "the community". The numerous previous discussions on this topic should indicate this - though check how recent comments are, as ruby GUI devleopment is an evolving field.
Above all, if you've tried them all, go with your feeling, as you know your requirements best.
> (or is there a
better one that I haven't listed).
There are also ruby bindings to Qt and GTK, which are both nice and fully-featured toolkits. Qt/Ruby in particular is up there with WxRuby for cross-platform native feel. "Shoes" is another, new, lightweight, option.
I am building small applications
with UI's that are not too complicated, and wrapping the apps into
exe files with rubyscript2exe.
With all the toolkits, you'll want to check how easy they are to install and redistribute on the operating systems you want to work on.
I like the smaller size of the final
product when using Tk, but the native look of Fx and Wx.
It's a fairly straight trade-off between size and features (and, subjectively, aesthetics). For a very simple app, Tk might suffice. For a complex end-user app, you might prefer Wx. Again, you know your requirements best.
hth
alex
I've been using Fox for windows. It works well. foxGUIb makes it quite easy to generate the windows. The documentation for Fox although it is written for use with C works without any trouble when using ruby.
Alex hit on a VERY good point, ease/difficulty of installation and redistribution is a big deal with GUI tool kits!
That is a point I had not really considered. I am building the apps
for myself, but some may eventually be redistributed to others for
use.
Thanks
On 9/17/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex hit on a VERY good point, ease/difficulty of installation and
redistribution is a big deal with GUI tool kits!
John Joyce wrote:
Alex hit on a VERY good point, ease/difficulty of installation and
redistribution is a big deal with GUI tool kits!
Here is my personal point of view ...
I just (re)discovered wxRuby with the 1.9.1 beta release and I like it
for the following reasons (in the order of my preferences) :
- Ruby user friendly syntax (the 1.9.1 beta release includes sugar
syntax from wxSugar and upcoming release will improve the syntax
further)
- really native toolkit that looks great on WinXP for example.
I'm almost sure that FOX and thus FXRuby are not native toolkits.
- very easy installation (only one binary gem)
- flexible licence (commercial and opensource usages)
- support for Windows, Linux and MacOSX (even if I mainly use Windows)
I'm not a member of the wxRuby team but they have done a good job with
the upcoming wxRuby2.
Nevertheless, if you have different preferences/requirements, your
choice will be likely different.
Cheers,
Chauk-Mean.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Is this going to run on multiple OSes or just Windows. If you only
need windows support you may want to look at visualuruby
http://www.osk.3web.ne.jp/~nyasu/vruby/vrproject-e.html
I've used it with rubyscript2exe and it bundles nicely.
Luis
On Sep 17, 2:24 pm, "Jayson Williams" <williams.jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is a point I had not really considered. I am building the apps
for myself, but some may eventually be redistributed to others for
use.
ThanksOn 9/17/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex hit on a VERY good point, ease/difficulty of installation and
> redistribution is a big deal with GUI tool kits!
wxRuby was definately one near the top of the list. My only objection
to using it was that the smallest exe file I could obtain when using
wxRuby was a wapping 8Meg. I dont know if that should be expected, but
it seemed really big to me. Performance, looks and syntax were all a
plus with me. The size of the exe file was the only drawback.
On 9/18/07, Chauk-Mean P. <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
John Joyce wrote:
> Alex hit on a VERY good point, ease/difficulty of installation and
> redistribution is a big deal with GUI tool kits!Here is my personal point of view ...
I just (re)discovered wxRuby with the 1.9.1 beta release and I like it
for the following reasons (in the order of my preferences) :- Ruby user friendly syntax (the 1.9.1 beta release includes sugar
syntax from wxSugar and upcoming release will improve the syntax
further)
- really native toolkit that looks great on WinXP for example.
I'm almost sure that FOX and thus FXRuby are not native toolkits.
- very easy installation (only one binary gem)
- flexible licence (commercial and opensource usages)
- support for Windows, Linux and MacOSX (even if I mainly use Windows)I'm not a member of the wxRuby team but they have done a good job with
the upcoming wxRuby2.
Nevertheless, if you have different preferences/requirements, your
choice will be likely different.Cheers,
Chauk-Mean.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
lrlebron@gmail.com wrote:
That is a point I had not really considered. I am building the apps
for myself, but some may eventually be redistributed to others for
use.
ThanksAlex hit on a VERY good point, ease/difficulty of installation and
redistribution is a big deal with GUI tool kits!
Is this going to run on multiple OSes or just Windows. If you only
need windows support you may want to look at visualuruby
404 Page Not Found. - GMOインターネットI've used it with rubyscript2exe and it bundles nicely.
Luis
Or even WideStudio if you are looking at GUI applications for multiple paltforms:
Cheers,
Mohit.
9/18/2007 | 10:51 AM.
On Sep 17, 2:24 pm, "Jayson Williams" <williams.jay...@gmail.com> > wrote:
On 9/17/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jayson Williams wrote:
wxRuby was definately one near the top of the list. My only objection
to using it was that the smallest exe file I could obtain when using
wxRuby was a wapping 8Meg.
I'm pretty sure there's a bug in current rubyscript2exe which makes it include the wxruby .so library file twice in the .exe bundle that's created. Unpacking and fixing this bug so the lib is only included once gives a working executable file of 3-5MB for a "hello world" app.
I'm following this up with the rubyscript2exe author - in the meantime, get in touch on the wxruby-users list for more info.
alex
...and what's wrong with ruby-gtk2?
--
Chris Game
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.
works fine over Mac OS X 10.4.10
awaiting for an aqua version...
Chris Game <chrisgame@example.net> wrote:
...and what's wrong with ruby-gtk2?
--
Une Bévue