Help a newbie pick a gui tool kit

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Dennis Roberts, Mar 12, 2005.

  1. So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
    Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.

    I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
    GUI toolkit to make it better looking.

    I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
    know what I am talking about:)

    What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
     
    Dennis Roberts, Mar 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <> wrote:
    > So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
    > Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.


    Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
    and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.


    > I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
    > GUI toolkit to make it better looking.
    >
    > I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
    > know what I am talking about:)
    >
    > What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?


    If you are on windows then a GUI toolkit named Fxruby should have been
    distributed with the Ruby installer.

    http://www.fxruby.org/

    Documentation is relative good (better than other toolkits).

    --
    Simon Strandgaard
     
    Simon Strandgaard, Mar 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dennis Roberts

    Bill Guindon Guest

    On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <> wrote:
    > So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
    > Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.
    >
    > I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
    > GUI toolkit to make it better looking.
    >
    > I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
    > know what I am talking about:)
    >
    > What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?


    These may help:

    http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits
    http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits/TakeTwo
    http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?GUIFrameworkProject/GUIComparison

    I haven't used one yet, but based on what I read in the comparisons,
    I'm leaning towards Wx.

    --
    Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
     
    Bill Guindon, Mar 12, 2005
    #3
  4. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:56:57 +0900, Derek Wyatt <> wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    >
    > |>I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
    > |>GUI toolkit to make it better looking.
    > |>
    > |>I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
    > |>know what I am talking about:)
    > |>
    > |>What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
    > |
    > |
    > | If you are on windows then a GUI toolkit named Fxruby should have been
    > | distributed with the Ruby installer.
    > |
    > | http://www.fxruby.org/
    > |
    > | Documentation is relative good (better than other toolkits).
    >
    > I tried FXRuby as my first ruby GUI toolkit and immediately
    > i hit problems. Just making a plain window wasn't working
    > right. All of the bits you set to get borders, menus, etc
    > weren't working.
    >
    > I would recommend starting with WX or GTK2. I haven't had
    > much experience in these kits yet, but my experienc with
    > FXRuby was horrid. I just wanted to find out how well the
    > GUI part would work but haven't gotten heavily into it, so
    > whatever experience you obtain, i would like to know how you
    > made out.
    >
    > Regs,
    > Derek


    I'm not sure what exactly wasn't working for you - but my experience
    with FXRuby was every bit as 'joyful' as my experience with Ruby.

    The links to the comparisons that someone else gave you are a good
    starting place. Asking people on this list what you should use will
    result in what has resulted - everybody finds one that they like and
    that fits their needs, and they recommend it. Nothin' wrong with that,
    just don't expect to get a definitive answer from a bunch of personal
    opinions. :)

    -Rich
     
    Richard Lyman, Mar 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Dennis Roberts

    ES Guest

    On Sat, March 12, 2005 10:05 am, Simon Strandgaard said:
    > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <> wrote:
    >> So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
    >> Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.

    >
    > Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
    > and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.
    >
    >
    >> I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
    >> GUI toolkit to make it better looking.
    >>
    >> I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
    >> know what I am talking about:)
    >>
    >> What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?

    >
    > If you are on windows then a GUI toolkit named Fxruby should have been
    > distributed with the Ruby installer.
    >
    > http://www.fxruby.org/
    >
    > Documentation is relative good (better than other toolkits).


    This was a brief topic on #ruby-lang, too. My vote goes for FOX, as well,
    although Wx has the advantage of using native widgets. FLTK looks promising
    but may not be feature-rich enough as yet.

    > Simon Strandgaard


    E
     
    ES, Mar 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Thanks for everyones input. I will check out the links provided.


    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:27:29 -0800, Dennis Roberts <> wrote:
    > So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
    > Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.
    >
    > I then decided to do it again in Ruby. I was thinking I could use a
    > GUI toolkit to make it better looking.
    >
    > I am looking at them they don't seem ruby-ish. Or perhaps I don't
    > know what I am talking about:)
    >
    > What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?
    >
     
    Dennis Roberts, Mar 12, 2005
    #6
  7. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:05:20 +0900, Simon Strandgaard <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <> wrote:
    > > So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
    > > Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.

    >
    > Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
    > and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.
    >


    To impress your wife if she is no programmer herself, best use Flash,
    don't program a line but make the words "I love you" fly blinking
    along the screen and form a heart afterwards. Sounds silly, is silly
    but shurely works better than the nicest, most impressive and best
    designed library/application ever written

    ;)

    Cheers,

    Brian

    --
    Brian Schröder
    http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/
     
    Brian Schröder, Mar 12, 2005
    #7
  8. Dennis Roberts

    Tom Willis Guest

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 02:41:10 +0900, Brian Schröder <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:05:20 +0900, Simon Strandgaard <> wrote:
    > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:27:43 +0900, Dennis Roberts <> wrote:
    > > > So I am still learning Ruby. I am also learning C. I just did
    > > > Conways Game of Life in C. I showed my wife and she wasn't impressed.

    > >
    > > Welcome to Ruby. I have tried the same, showing some thing I made
    > > and get the same reaction. I don't know any longer what it takes to impress.
    > >

    >
    > To impress your wife if she is no programmer herself, best use Flash,
    > don't program a line but make the words "I love you" fly blinking
    > along the screen and form a heart afterwards. Sounds silly, is silly
    > but shurely works better than the nicest, most impressive and best
    > designed library/application ever written
    >
    > ;)
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Brian
    >
    > --
    > Brian Schröder
    > http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/
    >
    >


    In the case of mine, I'd have to program a first person shooter that
    is as every bit as fun as Quake 3 Arena in ruby. ;)

    Needless to say I've given up.....




    --
    Thomas G. Willis
    http://paperbackmusic.net
     
    Tom Willis, Mar 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Well fltk looks the coolest. I love the examples. Unfortunatly it
    hasn't been touched since 2002 and I can't even get it to compile:(
     
    Dennis Roberts, Mar 12, 2005
    #9
  10. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:01:31 +0900, Tom Willis <> wrote:
    >
    > In the case of mine, I'd have to program a first person shooter that
    > is as every bit as fun as Quake 3 Arena in ruby. ;)
    >


    Actually, how easy is OpenGL to use in ruby? I remember seeing some
    examples a while back, but never took a close look at the code. A nice
    API for making Ruby apps with an OpenGL UI would be cool :)

    Douglas
     
    Douglas Livingstone, Mar 12, 2005
    #10
  11. Dennis Roberts

    Joe Van Dyk Guest

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:37:22 +0900, Douglas Livingstone
    <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:01:31 +0900, Tom Willis <> wrote:
    > >
    > > In the case of mine, I'd have to program a first person shooter that
    > > is as every bit as fun as Quake 3 Arena in ruby. ;)
    > >

    >
    > Actually, how easy is OpenGL to use in ruby? I remember seeing some
    > examples a while back, but never took a close look at the code. A nice
    > API for making Ruby apps with an OpenGL UI would be cool :)
    >
    > Douglas


    OpenGL is very easy to use. I don't think that GLUT works all that
    great with Ruby, although I did see it work once.

    But you'd need to find a UI toolkit to use with OpenGL though. GTK2 is great.
     
    Joe Van Dyk, Mar 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Dennis Roberts

    Lee Braiden Guest

    On Saturday 12 March 2005 18:37, Douglas Livingstone wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:01:31 +0900, Tom Willis <> wrote:
    > > In the case of mine, I'd have to program a first person shooter that
    > > is as every bit as fun as Quake 3 Arena in ruby. ;)

    >
    > Actually, how easy is OpenGL to use in ruby? I remember seeing some
    > examples a while back, but never took a close look at the code. A nice
    > API for making Ruby apps with an OpenGL UI would be cool :)


    Don't know about opengl. It always seemed to me that opengl/directx-type
    stuff was too low-level to do an actual 3d program in. I just want to load
    up painted models with animated skeletons and tell them what state to be in
    and where :)

    Not that I've ever gotten around to doing a 3d program since before 3d
    hardware ;D

    But you might want to check out this too:

    http://irr.rubyforge.org/

    And maybe look for a ruby wrapper for OGRE, too, since I keep hearing good
    things about it :)

    I wouldn't call OpenGL a GUI though; maybe a GI :) You might want to look
    into korundum for that :)

    --
    Lee.
     
    Lee Braiden, Mar 12, 2005
    #12
  13. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:52:31 +0900, Joe Van Dyk <> wrote:

    > OpenGL is very easy to use. I don't think that GLUT works all that
    > great with Ruby, although I did see it work once.



    There they are, in the ruby\samples\opengl directory.. now, something
    strange: the examples work, but when they are running, it changes the
    speed of my mouse! Very annoying. WinXP SP2. Open GL shouldn't be
    messing with that sort of stuff!

    Douglas
     
    Douglas Livingstone, Mar 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Dennis Roberts

    Richard Dale Guest

    Nicholas Marriott wrote:

    > lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
    > fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
    > appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)

    Possibly that might be because the ruby bindings for Qt 3.x are called
    'QtRuby'. There was an older unrelated project for Qt 1.x, called
    'Ruby/Qt'. Try searching for 'kde + ruby' or 'qt + ruby' instead.

    As QtRuby/Korundum are part of the KDE project I would assume FreeBSD ports
    exist.

    I don't know what you mean be 'lighter' - there is a version of Qt for
    embedded devices which works fine on PDAs and Smartphones.

    The next version of Qt, Qt 4.x will be GPL'd on the Windows platform, and
    there will be a corresponding GPL'd windows version of QtRuby. It is
    already licensed under the GPL on all other platforms, including Mac OS X.

    If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
    commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Dale, Mar 13, 2005
    #14
  15. "Bill Guindon" <> wrote:
    > > What is the best one for a newbie to get a handle on?

    >
    > These may help:
    >
    > http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits
    > http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?ComparingGuiToolkits/TakeTwo
    >

    http://freeride.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?GUIFrameworkProject/GUIComparison
    >
    > I haven't used one yet, but based on what I read in the comparisons,
    > I'm leaning towards Wx.


    I was recently trying to decide on a GUI toolkit to use with Ruby and ended
    up with wxRuby. I'd probably choose it again (it is the best of a bad bunch,
    although I haven't looked at WideStudio).

    However, it has some problems, mainly because it is quite young:

    - It is remarkably unstable on Windows. Whether this is wxRuby, wxWindows,
    or the way I use them, I don't know. The same code using wxRuby on GTK has
    been fine so far.
    - There are a few bugs and quite a few missing calls, especially with menus.
    - Error checking is virtually nonexistent. It will segfault if you pass the
    wrong type of argument into pretty much any method.
    - There are few documents. However, this is a problem with all the other
    toolkits and I find that the wxRuby examples are okay and the C++ docs at
    wxwindows.org map (usually!) fairly well to wxRuby. Still, be prepared to
    read the source occasionally to figure out just what wxRuby is expecting for
    some methods.
    - The style can feel quite alien to Ruby, but it is fairly easy to map into
    a Ruby program.
    - I think this is mainly a wxWindows problem but some things (particularly
    layout, sometimes) really don't work the way you would expect.
    - It looks like the current version has been pretty much abandoned and work
    is going on on a version using SWIG. So it seems that if you have any
    problems with 0.6, you are stuck with them for now :).

    Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike Fox
    which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
    fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
    appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
    than Ruby/GTK.

    -- Nicholas.
     
    Nicholas Marriott, Mar 14, 2005
    #15
  16. Dennis Roberts

    Jamey Cribbs Guest

    Nicholas Marriott wrote:

    >Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike Fox
    >which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
    >fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
    >appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
    >than Ruby/GTK.
    >
    >

    Ah...beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder. :)

    Fox looks fine to me on Windows. Of course, my wife tells me I have no
    fashion sense, so what do I know.

    Jamey

    Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email and any materials contained in any attachments is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the intended recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender by email and destroy all copies of the original message, including attachments.
     
    Jamey Cribbs, Mar 15, 2005
    #16
  17. Richard,

    I've been interested in using QtRuby for some time now. I believe Alex
    once mentioned that lack of availability of a non-commercial Windows
    license for Windows was an issue, but I recently discovered that the
    book C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3
    (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131240722) does contain a
    non-commercial Windows distribution of Qt3.

    In any case, how much money and demand are we talking about to make Qt a
    viable GUI toolkit for cross-platform ruby development? ;) I'd bet that
    once QtRuby became available for Windows it would catch on quickly.

    John-Mason P. Shackelford

    Richard Dale wrote:
    > Nicholas Marriott wrote:
    >
    >
    >> lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
    >>fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
    >>appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)

    >
    > Possibly that might be because the ruby bindings for Qt 3.x are called
    > 'QtRuby'. There was an older unrelated project for Qt 1.x, called
    > 'Ruby/Qt'. Try searching for 'kde + ruby' or 'qt + ruby' instead.
    >
    > As QtRuby/Korundum are part of the KDE project I would assume FreeBSD ports
    > exist.
    >
    > I don't know what you mean be 'lighter' - there is a version of Qt for
    > embedded devices which works fine on PDAs and Smartphones.
    >
    > The next version of Qt, Qt 4.x will be GPL'd on the Windows platform, and
    > there will be a corresponding GPL'd windows version of QtRuby. It is
    > already licensed under the GPL on all other platforms, including Mac OS X.
    >
    > If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
    > commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.
    >
    > -- Richard
    >
    >
     
    John-Mason P. Shackelford, Mar 15, 2005
    #17
  18. Dennis Roberts

    Luke Graham Guest

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:59:26 +0900, Richard Dale
    <> wrote:
    > Nicholas Marriott wrote:
    >
    > > lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
    > > fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
    > > appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)


    Urge to.. defend Qt... rising!...

    > If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
    > commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.


    Could you give some details on how this would differ from whats
    already available?

    --
    spooq
     
    Luke Graham, Mar 16, 2005
    #18
  19. Dennis Roberts

    Richard Dale Guest

    Luke Graham wrote:

    > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:59:26 +0900, Richard Dale
    > <> wrote:
    >> Nicholas Marriott wrote:
    >>
    >> > lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention the
    >> > fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
    >> > appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me)

    >
    > Urge to.. defend Qt... rising!...
    >
    >> If there is demand, Alex Kellett and myself will be happy to release a
    >> commercial paid for version of QtRuby for Qt 4.x.

    >
    > Could you give some details on how this would differ from whats
    > already available?

    Only the license - it would allow you to write commercial software which you
    can't do with the GPL'd version. Often a GPL license isn't suitable for
    even internal software development, because outside consultants might want
    to use it and that would count as 'distributing the software' under the
    GPL.

    There is a commercial version of PyQt which has apparently sold 'hundreds of
    copies', but then there are many more python programmers than ruby ones. So
    it's difficult to estimate demand for QtRuby, but I really think ruby seems
    to be catching on.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Dale, Mar 16, 2005
    #19
  20. "Jamey Cribbs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Nicholas Marriott wrote:
    >
    > >Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike

    Fox
    > >which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention

    the
    > >fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
    > >appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
    > >than Ruby/GTK.
    > >
    > >

    > Ah...beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder. :)
    >
    > Fox looks fine to me on Windows. Of course, my wife tells me I have no
    > fashion sense, so what do I know.


    Fox _is_ pretty much fine on Windows. Unfortunately, on X it is too ugly for
    me to use :).

    -- Nicholas.
     
    Nicholas Marriott, Mar 16, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Shahid

    Java Wireless Tool Kit

    Shahid, Apr 13, 2006, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    383
    Darryl L. Pierce
    Apr 28, 2006
  2. Learner
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,963
    venkatmath
    Jul 12, 2008
  3. vincent_delft

    Web tool kit : pro - cons ?

    vincent_delft, Jul 26, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    610
    Jon Ribbens
    Jul 30, 2003
  4. tom c
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    420
    tom c
    Nov 1, 2006
  5. =?Utf-8?B?U3R1?=

    Ajax control tool kit in asp project

    =?Utf-8?B?U3R1?=, Jan 25, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    287
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Jan 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page