Technology solutions for Ruby?

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Bruno Desthuilliers, Jul 15, 2007.

  1. vasudevram a écrit :
    (snip)
    >>To me this means Ruby, Python, or, as mentioned above, Perl. If anyone

    >
    > can tell me of a way to meet the above requirements in either Python
    > or
    > Perl, I'm all ears (I just prefer Ruby).


    >>1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings aren't

    > mature enough for production use.

    (snip)
    > wxPython has this (Native Look and Feel), I think


    It does - just like wxRuby, since both are language-specific bindings to
    the C++ wxWidgets toolkit.

    And FWIW, wxPython has been used on production for many years, so I
    think it qualifies as "production ready" !-)

    (snip)
    >>2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use

    > ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know
    > of
    > alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).


    In Python, you may want to have a look at SQLAlchemy, which offers lots
    of things from the "db abstraction layer" to the full-blown (and
    possibily somewhat ActiveRecord-like, cf the Elixir project) ORM.

    (snip)
    >>3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary

    > executable? The issue is twofold, speed, and not handing the
    > customer
    > the source :)


    <OP>
    IIRC, Ruby is actually still an interpreted language. Python is much
    like Java wrt/ this issue : it's byte-compiled (the difference being
    that this step is automagically managed by the VM).

    IOW, you won't gain any speed from the existing packaging systems(but
    then, if your project is mostly a GUI/DB tunnel, the two most critical
    parts are already somewhat optimized). And the level of protection
    gained from these packaging systems is very debatable at best (which,
    FWIW, is also the case with Java).
    </OP>

    (snip)
    > I first learned Python, have been using it for some time for various
    > projects, and then learned Ruby, and have done some projects with Ruby
    > too.
    >
    > I've been reading both the Ruby Cookbook and the Python Cookbook
    > rather thoroughly in the last few weeks (and trying out and modifying
    > many of the recipes), and what I've observed is that the two languages
    > are roughly similar in features.


    Yes.

    (snip)
    > For more advanced language features related to object-orientation,
    > metaclasses / metaprogramming, both have some support,


    s/some/great/g

    Both Ruby and Python are known for this.

    > but you might
    > or might not be able to do in one, what you can do in the other.


    I'd say that - wrt/ "advanced" programming tricks - *most* of what you
    can do with one can be done with the other - but usually in a *very*
    different way. While Ruby and Python have similar features and may look
    very similar at first sight, their respective object models are totally
    different.

    <OP>
    Basically, it's a matter of
    - which language *you* prefer
    - which one has the best libs for your app

    It seems that, in your case, you prefer Ruby but Python may *or not*
    have the best/more mature toolkit. So the best thing to do would be to
    first try to write a quick 'proof of concept' program in the language
    you prefer. Then, if you're still in doubt, write the same program in
    Python.

    My 2 cents (and friendly salutations to the Ruby community).
     
    Bruno Desthuilliers, Jul 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I'm contemplating writing an application in Ruby but in order to do so I
    have some requirements that I hope everyone can help me out with.

    This is for a primarily windows application, however I'd like to keep
    the door open for Mac/Linux.


    1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings aren't
    mature enough for production use. Does anyone have any experience with
    this and/or can you offer alternatives that provide a native look and
    feel (I

    2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use
    ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know of
    alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).

    3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    executable? The issue is twofold, speed, and not handing the customer
    the source :)


    I have no experience with developing/deploying Ruby in a
    "shrinkwrapped-esque" environment and would appreciate input from those
    with more experience.

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Michael Reiland, Jul 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruno Desthuilliers

    snacktime Guest

    On 7/15/07, Michael Reiland <> wrote:
    > I'm contemplating writing an application in Ruby but in order to do so I
    > have some requirements that I hope everyone can help me out with.
    >
    > This is for a primarily windows application, however I'd like to keep
    > the door open for Mac/Linux.
    >
    >
    > 1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings aren't
    > mature enough for production use. Does anyone have any experience with
    > this and/or can you offer alternatives that provide a native look and
    > feel (I
    >

    wxruby is the best that I'm aware of, and I wouldn't even think of
    creating a production windows gui with it.

    > 2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use
    > ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know of
    > alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).


    Not sure what you mean by uniform. Activerecord is pretty uniform
    from the perspective of how you use it regardless of the database.
    There is also ruby-dbi, similar to the perl dbi.

    >
    > 3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    > executable?


    No.


    You might take a look at Jruby.

    Chris
     
    snacktime, Jul 16, 2007
    #3
  4. Michael Reiland wrote:
    > 1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings aren't
    > mature enough for production use. Does anyone have any experience with
    > this and/or can you offer alternatives that provide a native look and
    > feel (I


    GUI isn't my thing, sorry.

    > 2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use
    > ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know of
    > alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).


    ActiveRecord does pretty well at supporting multiple types of DBs
    Some currently supported adapters currently included with ActiveRecord:
    DB2, Firebird, FrontBase, Mysql, OpenBase, Oracle, SQlite, MS SQL Server
    (Windows only), and Sybase. However, you can always create your own by
    inheriting ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::AbstractAdapter

    I've never seen it used, but OpenLink has an ODBC Adapter:
    http://odbc-rails.rubyforge.org

    > 3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    > executable? The issue is twofold, speed, and not handing the customer
    > the source :)


    I believe there is one for .NET, and I know of a couple in design or
    proof-of-concept stages, but that's it. (Google: ruby compiler)

    --
    Travis Warlick

    "Programming in Java is like dealing with your mom --
    it's kind, forgiving, and gently chastising.
    Programming in C++ is like dealing with a disgruntled
    girlfriend -- it's cold, unforgiving, and doesn't tell
    you what you've done wrong."
     
    Travis D Warlick Jr, Jul 16, 2007
    #4
  5. Michael Reiland wrote:
    > I'm contemplating writing an application in Ruby but in order to do so I
    > have some requirements that I hope everyone can help me out with.
    >
    > This is for a primarily windows application, however I'd like to keep
    > the door open for Mac/Linux.
    >
    >
    > 1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings aren't
    > mature enough for production use. Does anyone have any experience with
    > this and/or can you offer alternatives that provide a native look and
    > feel (I


    Forget native look and feel -- go for *quality* look and feel. I'd
    recommend Qt4-qtruby for that. It just looks better than any other
    toolkit, and it's extraordinarily well documented.

    >
    > 2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use
    > ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know of
    > alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).

    unixODBC is a pain in the ass to work with ... there are very few
    free-as-in-freedom drivers. I'd go with ActiveRecord, since it binds to
    Oracle, MS SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite. It's probably not all that
    difficult to extend it to other databases.
    >
    > 3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    > executable? The issue is twofold, speed, and not handing the customer
    > the source :)

    The closest thing is the Zen Obfuscator, I think.

    >
    >
    > I have no experience with developing/deploying Ruby in a
    > "shrinkwrapped-esque" environment and would appreciate input from those
    > with more experience.


    Do you have experience developing *anything* in a shrinkwrapped-esque
    environment? Especially Perl, because I think you'll find the
    ActiveState Perl tools are quite good for this, and Perl will do
    everything Ruby can do -- except be Ruby, of course. :) I won't stand in
    your way if you want to do this in Ruby.
    >
     
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Jul 16, 2007
    #5
  6. Bruno Desthuilliers

    John Joyce Guest

    On Jul 16, 2007, at 12:43 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

    > Michael Reiland wrote:
    >> I'm contemplating writing an application in Ruby but in order to
    >> do so I
    >> have some requirements that I hope everyone can help me out with.
    >>
    >> This is for a primarily windows application, however I'd like to keep
    >> the door open for Mac/Linux.
    >>
    >>
    >> 1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings
    >> aren't
    >> mature enough for production use. Does anyone have any experience
    >> with
    >> this and/or can you offer alternatives that provide a native look and
    >> feel (I

    >
    > Forget native look and feel -- go for *quality* look and feel. I'd
    > recommend Qt4-qtruby for that. It just looks better than any other
    > toolkit, and it's extraordinarily well documented.
    >
    >>
    >> 2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like
    >> to use
    >> ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you
    >> know of
    >> alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).

    > unixODBC is a pain in the ass to work with ... there are very few
    > free-as-in-freedom drivers. I'd go with ActiveRecord, since it
    > binds to
    > Oracle, MS SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite. It's probably not all
    > that
    > difficult to extend it to other databases.
    >>
    >> 3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    >> executable? The issue is twofold, speed, and not handing the
    >> customer
    >> the source :)

    > The closest thing is the Zen Obfuscator, I think.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> I have no experience with developing/deploying Ruby in a
    >> "shrinkwrapped-esque" environment and would appreciate input from
    >> those
    >> with more experience.

    >
    > Do you have experience developing *anything* in a shrinkwrapped-esque
    > environment? Especially Perl, because I think you'll find the
    > ActiveState Perl tools are quite good for this, and Perl will do
    > everything Ruby can do -- except be Ruby, of course. :) I won't
    > stand in
    > your way if you want to do this in Ruby.
    >>

    >
    >

    why go to all the trouble of trying to obfuscate anything?
    Just sign a licensing agreement.
    If your customer violates it, your customer is in deep doodoo in court.
    Lawyers will scare almost anybody out of doing stuff.

    If you're worried about it too much, you could always be annoying and
    put a very obfuscated phone home function in buried as an extension
    of one of the higher classes. And give them a version that is
    stripped of documentation.

    In the end though, if you're using a scripting language, it is utter
    foolishness to try to hide the code. Even compiled languages can be
    decompiled well enough and often enough.
     
    John Joyce, Jul 16, 2007
    #6
  7. Bruno Desthuilliers

    SonOfLilit Guest

    The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements you
    listed as a Rails app. Is there a reason for you not to?


    Aur
     
    SonOfLilit, Jul 16, 2007
    #7
  8. At the heart of the issue is the fact that I refuse to use Java for this
    project, I prefer not to use .Net because of the portability issues, and
    I'd like to get away from C++ for obvious reasons.

    To me this means Ruby, Python, or, as mentioned above, Perl. If anyone
    can tell me of a way to meet the above requirements in either Python or
    Perl, I'm all ears (I just prefer Ruby).


    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Michael Reiland, Jul 16, 2007
    #8
  9. SonOfLilit wrote:
    > The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements you
    > listed as a Rails app. Is there a reason for you not to?
    >
    >
    > Aur



    The project is to replace an existing desktop software solution targeted
    towards small to midsized companies. I don't see any advantages to
    moving it onto the web.



    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Michael Reiland, Jul 16, 2007
    #9
  10. snacktime wrote:
    > On 7/15/07, Michael Reiland <> wrote:
    >> I'm contemplating writing an application in Ruby but in order to do so I
    >> have some requirements that I hope everyone can help me out with.
    >>
    >> This is for a primarily windows application, however I'd like to keep
    >> the door open for Mac/Linux.
    >>
    >>
    >> 1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings aren't
    >> mature enough for production use. Does anyone have any experience with
    >> this and/or can you offer alternatives that provide a native look and
    >> feel (I
    >>

    > wxruby is the best that I'm aware of, and I wouldn't even think of
    > creating a production windows gui with it.
    >
    >> 2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use
    >> ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know of
    >> alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).

    >
    > Not sure what you mean by uniform. Activerecord is pretty uniform
    > from the perspective of how you use it regardless of the database.
    > There is also ruby-dbi, similar to the perl dbi.
    >
    >>
    >> 3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    >> executable?

    >
    > No.
    >
    >
    > You might take a look at Jruby.
    >
    > Chris
    >
    >


    Yeah ... jRuby has a cross-platform GUI and all the database stuff. I
    don't particularly like the typical Java GUI look and feel, but that's
    just my personal taste.
     
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Jul 16, 2007
    #10
  11. Bruno Desthuilliers

    SonOfLilit Guest

    > The project is to replace an existing desktop software solution targeted
    > towards small to midsized companies. I don't see any advantages to
    > moving it onto the web.


    The advantage is that Rails gives a better API for GUI database
    programming than any GUI library I know.

    It also gives you absolute hiding of the source code.

    You could also, BTW, implement the backend in Rails with a REST API
    and the frontend with some GUI library.
     
    SonOfLilit, Jul 16, 2007
    #11
  12. Bruno Desthuilliers

    Trans Guest

    On Jul 16, 2:51 am, SonOfLilit <> wrote:
    > The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements you
    > listed as a Rails app.


    That's a ridiculous statement.

    T.
     
    Trans, Jul 16, 2007
    #12
  13. Bruno Desthuilliers

    Trans Guest

    On Jul 16, 12:53 am, Michael Reiland <> wrote:
    > I'm contemplating writing an application in Ruby but in order to do so I
    > have some requirements that I hope everyone can help me out with.
    >
    > This is for a primarily windows application, however I'd like to keep
    > the door open for Mac/Linux.
    >
    > 1. GUI - Native Look and Feel. According to wxRuby the bindings aren't
    > mature enough for production use. Does anyone have any experience with
    > this and/or can you offer alternatives that provide a native look and
    > feel (I


    The best way to handle this is to use SOC (Separation of Concerns)
    keeping all you logic together separate from your interface code, then
    add a dedicated GUI for each OS you want to support. You'll find that
    some of the same concepts will apply to each, so once you finish one
    front-end it won't be as hard to do another. Yes, this means
    mantinaing more code, but you get native look and feel, and can take
    advantage of any special features of each GUI.

    > 2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use
    > ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know of
    > alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).


    How is ActiveRecord not uniform? ActiveRecord is a good choice. But if
    you'd rather just work in SQL there is also DBI.

    > 3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    > executable? The issue is twofold, speed, and not handing the customer
    > the source :)


    Maybe try, Ruby2exe.

    T.
     
    Trans, Jul 16, 2007
    #13
  14. Bruno Desthuilliers

    SonOfLilit Guest

    On 7/16/07, Trans <> wrote:
    > On Jul 16, 2:51 am, SonOfLilit <> wrote:
    > > The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements you
    > > listed as a Rails app.

    >
    > That's a ridiculous statement.
    >
    > T.


    It's based on the fact that in any such thread, the idea comes up and
    many have supported it from their experience. Notice I said to
    "consider". What I mean is:

    In Ruby, when you need a database GUI app, there's another option
    besides GUI toolkits and that is Rails.

    BTW, using Rails does not mean having it online, you can even
    distribute it as a Rails server to be run on the client's computer
    (but then you don't get the advantage of absolutely hidden code).


    Aur
     
    SonOfLilit, Jul 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Bruno Desthuilliers

    Guest

    On Jul 16, 6:43 am, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <>
    wrote:
    > Michael Reiland wrote:


    > > 2. Databases - contemplating using ActiveRecord, but I would like to use
    > > ODBC to support multiple types of DB's in a uniform way (if you know of
    > > alternatives to ODBC or ActiveRecord, please let me know).

    >
    > unixODBC is a pain in the ass to work with ... there are very few
    > free-as-in-freedom drivers. I'd go with ActiveRecord, since it binds to
    > Oracle, MS SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite. It's probably not all that
    > difficult to extend it to other databases.

    QtRuby works well with ActiveRecord. I've included a couple of classes
    in the latest 1.4.9 release under qtruby/rails_support that provide
    subclasses Qt::AbstractTableModel and Qt::AbstractItemModel that are
    generic, and will work with any ActiveRecord (or ActiveResource)
    instance. You can also write you're own custom versions of these
    classes and the other Qt model classes to work with ActiveRecord.

    > > 3. Binary - Are there any utilities for compiling Ruby into a binary
    > > executable? The issue is twofold, speed, and not handing the customer
    > > the source :)

    >
    > The closest thing is the Zen Obfuscator, I think.

    Note that Qt4 QtRuby is GPL only at present, and if you wish to
    distribute closed source binaries (not that I'm convinced that is
    possible with C Ruby), you would need to make an arrangement with
    myself (and I would have to discuss with the other copyright holders).
    That may well be a show stopper, but in order to justify a commercial
    version of QtRuby I would need to believe there was a critical mass of
    paying customers, and I don't see that at present.

    You can use WxRuby for commercial development, but I haven't heard of
    anyone doing it which would also suggest there isn't sufficient demand
    for commercially licensed Ruby GUI bindings.

    -- Richard
     
    , Jul 16, 2007
    #15
  16. Bruno Desthuilliers

    Trans Guest

    On Jul 16, 5:33 am, SonOfLilit <> wrote:
    > On 7/16/07, Trans <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Jul 16, 2:51 am, SonOfLilit <> wrote:
    > > > The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements you
    > > > listed as a Rails app.

    >
    > > That's a ridiculous statement.

    >
    > > T.

    >
    > It's based on the fact that in any such thread, the idea comes up and
    > many have supported it from their experience. Notice I said to
    > "consider". What I mean is:
    >
    > In Ruby, when you need a database GUI app, there's another option
    > besides GUI toolkits and that is Rails.
    >
    > BTW, using Rails does not mean having it online, you can even
    > distribute it as a Rails server to be run on the client's computer
    > (but then you don't get the advantage of absolutely hidden code).


    My point is that there are plenty of other choices: Nitro, Camping,
    Webrick.

    Ruby != Rails.

    T.
     
    Trans, Jul 16, 2007
    #16
  17. Bruno Desthuilliers

    SonOfLilit Guest

    Of course - actually, personally I prefer Camping over Rails.

    But Rails has all the features, all the glitter and all the userbase.

    That's why I recommended it.

    Aur

    On 7/16/07, Trans <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > On Jul 16, 5:33 am, SonOfLilit <> wrote:
    > > On 7/16/07, Trans <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Jul 16, 2:51 am, SonOfLilit <> wrote:
    > > > > The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements you
    > > > > listed as a Rails app.

    > >
    > > > That's a ridiculous statement.

    > >
    > > > T.

    > >
    > > It's based on the fact that in any such thread, the idea comes up and
    > > many have supported it from their experience. Notice I said to
    > > "consider". What I mean is:
    > >
    > > In Ruby, when you need a database GUI app, there's another option
    > > besides GUI toolkits and that is Rails.
    > >
    > > BTW, using Rails does not mean having it online, you can even
    > > distribute it as a Rails server to be run on the client's computer
    > > (but then you don't get the advantage of absolutely hidden code).

    >
    > My point is that there are plenty of other choices: Nitro, Camping,
    > Webrick.
    >
    > Ruby != Rails.
    >
    > T.
    >
    >
    >
     
    SonOfLilit, Jul 16, 2007
    #17
  18. On Jul 16, 2007, at 2:21 AM, Michael Reiland wrote:

    > SonOfLilit wrote:
    >> The ruby way is to consider building any app with the requirements
    >> you
    >> listed as a Rails app. Is there a reason for you not to?
    >>
    >>
    >> Aur

    >
    >
    > The project is to replace an existing desktop software solution
    > targeted
    > towards small to midsized companies. I don't see any advantages to
    > moving it onto the web.


    Well, without knowing thing one about the problem domain, a midsized
    company I often work with is hard at work moving one of their
    applications to the Web for several reasons that may or may not apply
    to you:

    * Centralized database. Having to constantly sync up the data on
    various employee boxes has caused them a lot of grief.
    * Easier software updates. Their current desktop solution requires
    them to upgrade all boxes involved at the same time. Their employees
    are spread all over the country, so that's quite a challenge.
    * Simplified training for new employees. They've found that it takes
    less time to train employees to use a company Web site than it does a
    custom desktop application.

    I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. Many applications
    aren't viable for a move to the Web, in my opinion. If yours is
    though, I think there are quite a few advantages to doing it.

    James Edward Gray II
     
    James Edward Gray II, Jul 16, 2007
    #18
  19. Bruno Desthuilliers

    John Joyce Guest

    On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:30 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

    > On Jul 16, 2007, at 2:21 AM, Michael Reiland wrote:
    >
    >> SonOfLilit wrote:
    >>> The ruby way is to consider building any app with the
    >>> requirements you
    >>> listed as a Rails app. Is there a reason for you not to?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Aur

    >>
    >>
    >> The project is to replace an existing desktop software solution
    >> targeted
    >> towards small to midsized companies. I don't see any advantages to
    >> moving it onto the web.

    >
    > Well, without knowing thing one about the problem domain, a
    > midsized company I often work with is hard at work moving one of
    > their applications to the Web for several reasons that may or may
    > not apply to you:
    >
    > * Centralized database. Having to constantly sync up the data on
    > various employee boxes has caused them a lot of grief.
    > * Easier software updates. Their current desktop solution requires
    > them to upgrade all boxes involved at the same time. Their
    > employees are spread all over the country, so that's quite a
    > challenge.
    > * Simplified training for new employees. They've found that it
    > takes less time to train employees to use a company Web site than
    > it does a custom desktop application.
    >
    > I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. Many applications
    > aren't viable for a move to the Web, in my opinion. If yours is
    > though, I think there are quite a few advantages to doing it.
    >
    > James Edward Gray II
    >
    >

    A web-based interface can be clumsy and ugly compared to native GUI
    interfaces, but you could also look into Flex or Flash as viable
    alternatives that make interfaces pretty easy and are definitely
    cross platform, still leaving web connectivity open as an option.
    There's always Ncurses if you want to go with butt ugly in the eyes
    of users!
    One other option I just thought of is RealBasic. If you have VB
    skills around, RealBasic would be pretty easy to start using. You'd
    need to buy a license, but you can compile to native UI apps for
    various platforms including Windows and OS X.
     
    John Joyce, Jul 16, 2007
    #19
  20. Bruno Desthuilliers

    Guest

    On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Trans wrote:

    To address the original poster's question first, I agree with Ed that QT
    is probably the best choice for a GUI toolkit right now.

    For DB Access, Once can look at an ORM like AotiveRecord, Og, or Kansas,
    or a db abstraction layer like DBI, or something that's kind of in between
    them, like Sequel. There are many choices, depending on what the needs
    actually are.

    For obfusication, the prevailing advice is; "Don't bother." However,
    there is Zen Obfusicator if you really want to obfusicate and are willing
    to pay the licensing fee.

    You can also turn any of your classes into binary extensions using

    http://ruby2cext.rubyforge.org/

    And you can turn a Ruby app a .exe using

    http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html

    >> In Ruby, when you need a database GUI app, there's another option
    >> besides GUI toolkits and that is Rails.
    >>
    >> BTW, using Rails does not mean having it online, you can even
    >> distribute it as a Rails server to be run on the client's computer
    >> (but then you don't get the advantage of absolutely hidden code).

    >
    > My point is that there are plenty of other choices: Nitro, Camping,
    > Webrick.
    >
    > Ruby != Rails.


    Exactly. The frameworks other than Rails that have some production
    userbase, and that each have some differences and advantages over Rails,
    include:

    IOWA, Nitro, Ramaze, Merb, and Camping. Rack should also be mentioned
    because while it is not a framework like those other, it is a
    meta-framework, providing much of the low level of functionality that all
    frameworks share. Rack makes it pretty easy to develop custom apps that
    are not built on top of any particular framework.

    So, when using Ruby, when you need a database GUI app, there's another
    option besides GUI toolkits and Rails, and that includes any of the above
    items. The "Ruby way" isn't just Rails.


    Kirk Haines
     
    , Jul 16, 2007
    #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. Job Search - Information Technology Consulting
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    517
    Job Search - Information Technology Consulting
    Jan 14, 2005
  2. Bruno Desthuilliers

    Re: Technology solutions for Ruby?

    Bruno Desthuilliers, Jul 15, 2007, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    299
    Chris Mellon
    Jul 24, 2007
  3. Martjack Ecommerce
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    552
    Martjack Ecommerce
    Dec 22, 2009
  4. Cal Who
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    482
    Cal Who
    Jun 9, 2010
  5. Terrence Brannon

    non-invasive templating solutions in ruby?

    Terrence Brannon, Jan 26, 2009, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    112
    Brian Candler
    Jan 26, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page