Using Ruby instead of JS for Chrome / Firefox Extensions?

People,

I found this:

"Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby 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:

"What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to manage."

- 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 . .

Comments?

Thanks,

Phil.

···

--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

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 gets compiled into Javascript. I think this means that in your browser you’ll still have to deal with JS in your debugging. You can find Opal here: https://github.com/opal/opal.

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), Javascript is it for browser extensions.

···

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).

On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> wrote:

People,

I found this:

"Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby on Rails?"

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8810135/possible-to-develop-google-chrome-extension-with-ruby-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:

"What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to manage."

- 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 . .

Comments?

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

Jack and Walter,

Thanks for those clarifications!

Phil.

···

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
gets compiled into Javascript. I think this means that in your browser
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),
Javascript is it for browser extensions.

On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> >> wrote:

People,

I found this:

"Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby
on Rails?"

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8810135/possible-to-develop-google-chrome-extension-with-ruby-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:

"What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and
the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will
have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to
manage."

- 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
. .

Comments?

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

Unsubscribe:
<mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

Jack,

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
gets compiled into Javascript. I think this means that in your browser
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.

If I wanted to develop such an extension just for my own use eg - as an exercise say - is it possible to bundle Ruby as the interpreter and get a working "Hello World!" extension going?

Thanks,

Phil.

···

On 2020-04-08 12:02, Jack Royal-Gordon wrote:

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),
Javascript is it for browser extensions.

On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> >> wrote:

People,

I found this:

"Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby
on Rails?"

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8810135/possible-to-develop-google-chrome-extension-with-ruby-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:

"What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and
the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will
have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to
manage."

- 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
. .

Comments?

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

Unsubscribe:
<mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

Following Uncle Bob’s - Clean Code advice that programming languages are
just tools. I would go with JavaScript for 4 main reasons:

1. There is no need to add extra overhead to make javascript work in the
browser.
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.
4. Javascript is pretty easy to pick up.

PS: As a hobby project this could be an interesting and fun endeavor.

···

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 04:47 Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> wrote:

Jack and Walter,

Thanks for those clarifications!

Phil.

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
> gets compiled into Javascript. I think this means that in your browser
> 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),
> Javascript is it for browser extensions.
>
>> On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> > >> wrote:
>>
>> People,
>>
>> I found this:
>>
>> "Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby
>> on Rails?"
>>
>>
>
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8810135/possible-to-develop-google-chrome-extension-with-ruby-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:
>>
>> "What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and
>> the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will
>> have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to
>> manage."
>>
>> - 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
>> . .
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Phil.
>> --
>> Philip Rhoades
>>
>> PO Box 896
>> Cowra NSW 2794
>> Australia
>> E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au
>>
>> Unsubscribe:
>> <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

I’m not sure. Theoretically, you might be able to bundle your compiled Opal/Ruby code, with calls to some pure JS for the functions where callbacks/promises are required, but I’m not sure how much you would gain by using two languages (Opal/Ruby + JS) over using just one language (JS). As an exercise it might be interesting, but I don’t expect it to lead to a valuable skill set.

···

On Apr 7, 2020, at 8:10 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> wrote:

Jack,

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
gets compiled into Javascript. I think this means that in your browser
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.

If I wanted to develop such an extension just for my own use eg - as an exercise say - is it possible to bundle Ruby as the interpreter and get a working "Hello World!" extension going?

Thanks,

Phil.

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),
Javascript is it for browser extensions.

On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> >>> wrote:
People,
I found this:
"Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby
on Rails?"

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8810135/possible-to-develop-google-chrome-extension-with-ruby-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:
"What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and
the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will
have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to
manage."
- 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
. .
Comments?
Thanks,
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au <mailto:phil@pricom.com.au>

Thank you for summing up my thinking better than I could. :wink:

···

On Apr 8, 2020, at 7:42 AM, Alexander <mycroft1891@gmail.com> wrote:

Following Uncle Bob’s - Clean Code advice that programming languages are just tools. I would go with JavaScript for 4 main reasons:

1. There is no need to add extra overhead to make javascript work in the browser.
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.
4. Javascript is pretty easy to pick up.

PS: As a hobby project this could be an interesting and fun endeavor.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 04:47 Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au <mailto:phil@pricom.com.au>> wrote:
Jack and Walter,

Thanks for those clarifications!

Phil.

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
> gets compiled into Javascript. I think this means that in your browser
> 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),
> Javascript is it for browser extensions.
>
>> On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au <mailto:phil@pricom.com.au>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> People,
>>
>> I found this:
>>
>> "Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby
>> on Rails?"
>>
>>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8810135/possible-to-develop-google-chrome-extension-with-ruby-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:
>>
>> "What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and
>> the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will
>> have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to
>> manage."
>>
>> - 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
>> . .
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Phil.
>> --
>> Philip Rhoades
>>
>> PO Box 896
>> Cowra NSW 2794
>> Australia
>> E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au <mailto:phil@pricom.com.au>
>>
>> Unsubscribe:
>> <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au <mailto:phil@pricom.com.au>

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

Opal Promises: https://opalrb.com/docs/guides/master/promises.html

An Opal based rails-aware client-side react framework integrated with
webpack: https://hyperstack.org/ . It is overkill for the applications
discussed so far, but there is lots to learn from here.

Once you're done with demo apps, Opal pulls you(in my case kicking and
screaming :wink: into the nexus of client-side Javascript build tools.
Webpack, Babel, source-maps (debug Ruby in the browser dev tools), bunding,
source rewriting. All the interesting, frustrating, and terrifying aspects
of another language's ecosystem.
The Ruby/Javascript language transition is not the hard part, especially
with modern ES6 Javascript. The dev/build ecosystem has a steep learning
curve.

When you do get to client-side JS frameworks, IMHO: https://vuejs.org/ has
the easiest learning curve, interface code is a nice combination of
declarative and functional.

Enjoy the trip down the rabbit hole.

-gf-

···

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:12 PM Jack Royal-Gordon <jackrg@pobox.com> wrote:

Thank you for summing up my thinking better than I could. :wink:

On Apr 8, 2020, at 7:42 AM, Alexander <mycroft1891@gmail.com> wrote:

Following Uncle Bob’s - Clean Code advice that programming languages are
just tools. I would go with JavaScript for 4 main reasons:

1. There is no need to add extra overhead to make javascript work in the
browser.
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.
4. Javascript is pretty easy to pick up.

PS: As a hobby project this could be an interesting and fun endeavor.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 04:47 Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> wrote:

Jack and Walter,

Thanks for those clarifications!

Phil.

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
> gets compiled into Javascript. I think this means that in your browser
> 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),
> Javascript is it for browser extensions.
>
>> On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Philip Rhoades <phil@pricom.com.au> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> People,
>>
>> I found this:
>>
>> "Javascript - Possible to develop google chrome extension with Ruby
>> on Rails?"
>>
>>
>
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8810135/possible-to-develop-google-chrome-extension-with-ruby-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:
>>
>> "What takes a month to write in Ruby takes a year in Javascript, and
>> the Ruby code will be more maintainable. And the javascript will
>> have far more security vulnerabilities and be far more of a pain to
>> manage."
>>
>> - 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
>> . .
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Phil.
>> --
>> Philip Rhoades
>>
>> PO Box 896
>> Cowra NSW 2794
>> Australia
>> E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au
>>
>> Unsubscribe:
>> <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil@pricom.com.au

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe
<ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>