On Apr 8, 2020, at 7:42 AM, Alexander <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
2. Testing and debugging will be easier.
3. Freedom from dependencies. Making Ruby work in the browser might be possible but will come with new dependencies which I would have to manage. Furthermore, the dependency my project relies on could be outdated/malfunctioning and then I would be debugging 2 or more programs to make it all work.
PS: As a hobby project this could be an interesting and fun endeavor.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 04:47 Philip Rhoades <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
Jack and Walter,
Thanks for those clarifications!
On 2020-04-08 12:02, Jack Royal-Gordon wrote:
> I think that the most successful attempt to put Ruby on the client
> side so far might be the Opal project. I haven’t actually used it,
> but my understanding is that basically, you write client side code in
> Ruby using it’s basic syntax plus the Opal libraries, and that code
> you’ll still have to deal with JS in your debugging. You can find
> Opal here: https://github.com/opal/opal.
> From my reading of this and some other Opal articles, I would say that
> if you want something quick and dirty Opal might be fine but for an
> enterprise-level project, you should probably still use JS on the
> client side (I’m open to counter-arguments, this is just based on
> what I’ve seen and my experience with browsers).
> Now that’s for client-side apps that have server components. Browser
> extensions are a whole other animal, and as I’m maintaining one now
> I can speak to that with a little more authority. The key to
> accomplishing tasks in a browser extension is the use of Promises (a
> relatively new JS concept that essentially replaces callbacks). I
> didn’t see anything in my quick review of Opal that implied that
> they had anything analogous to Promises (again, please correct me if
> I’m wrong), so that presents a significant issue. To me, that means
> there’s no way you’re going to write a browser extension that does
> anything interesting in Opal. Further, I’m not aware of any way to
> tell the browser that the primary code of the extension is anything
> other than JS.
> I love Ruby and Ruby on Rails, but honestly a programmer should use
> the best language for the task and, given the current state of
> browsers (i.e. they all support client-side JS code, but support for
> other languages is either interpreted in JS or is not cross-platform),
>> On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> > >> wrote:
>> I found this:
>> on Rails?"
>> - where, basically, they say it is not possible to develop
>> client-side apps in Ruby - but is this really true? - I am not
>> interested in the server side stuff FTTB . .
>> In a recent post here:
>> have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to
>> - I accept that there might be some exaggeration there but that, as
>> a generalisation, it is probably true . . which is another reason I
>> would like to stick with Ruby instead of having to learn JS as well
>> . .
>> Philip Rhoades
>> PO Box 896
>> Cowra NSW 2794
>> E-mail: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
E-mail: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>