Where to start

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Tolga C., Feb 1, 2011.

  1. Tolga C.

    Tolga C. Guest

    Hi all I am new to Ruby been trying to learn for a while but didn't get
    a chance till now.

    Here is my question:

    I would like to create a application (not a web application) which will
    run on linux machine.

    What is the best application to create a ruby application with a GUI.
    Where can I get 101 instructions or a cook book type of information on
    Ruby and designing a GUI based ruby application.

    Thank you,

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
    Tolga C., Feb 1, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The easiest (and most pleasant to work with!) Ruby GUI toolkit is definitely=
    Shoes:

    http://shoesrb.com/

    Check out the site and the docs, they are very easy to understand.

    Shoes was used to build Hackety Hack, an app suitable to teach Ruby to kids (=
    but quite fun for adults too):

    http://hackety-hack.com/

    Fabio Cevasco
    =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
    www.H3RALD.com

    On 1 Feb 2011, at 19:32, "Tolga C." <> wrote:

    > Hi all I am new to Ruby been trying to learn for a while but didn't get
    > a chance till now.
    >=20
    > Here is my question:
    >=20
    > I would like to create a application (not a web application) which will
    > run on linux machine.
    >=20
    > What is the best application to create a ruby application with a GUI.
    > Where can I get 101 instructions or a cook book type of information on
    > Ruby and designing a GUI based ruby application.
    >=20
    > Thank you,
    >=20
    > --=20
    > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
    >=20
    Fabio Cevasco, Feb 1, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    +1 for Shoes. I am a bit biased, being on Team Shoes, though. ;)
    Steve Klabnik, Feb 1, 2011
    #3
  4. Steve: thanks for helping maintaining such an awesome toolkit.

    I really can't wait until you can provide a proper gem. While Shoes is fine f=
    or standalone applications, I'd like to be able to add a GUI to an existing p=
    roject, without being 'tied' to Shoes' packaging black magic for distributio=
    n.

    I read you guys are planning a partial rewrite in pure ruby... I can't wait!=
    I would like to contribute actually, I just don't know where to start and w=
    hat you are looking for right now.

    Fabio Cevasco
    =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
    www.H3RALD.com

    On 1 Feb 2011, at 20:49, Steve Klabnik <> wrote:

    > +1 for Shoes. I am a bit biased, being on Team Shoes, though. ;)
    Fabio Cevasco, Feb 1, 2011
    #4
  5. On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 02:40:17 pm Fabio Cevasco wrote:
    > I really can't wait until you can provide a proper gem. While Shoes is fine
    > for standalone applications, I'd like to be able to add a GUI to an
    > existing project, without being 'tied' to Shoes' packaging black magic for
    > distribution.


    +1

    I haven't considered Shoes in quite a long time because of precisely this
    reason. I have several existing ways to deploy apps, and it'd be really nice
    if Shoes could separate the GUI framework from the deployment system. (I
    suppose the deployment system might depend on Shoes, but I see no reason it
    should be the other way around.)

    Monkeybars seems _slightly_ less bound to Rawr -- hey, at least I can make a
    rawr app without Monkeybars -- but I'd still much rather have it entirely
    separate, so Ruby people can install my app as a gem.
    David Masover, Feb 1, 2011
    #5
  6. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    David, right now, they're 100% intertwined. That's the way that _why liked
    it. Not only that, it's actually pretty integral to how Shoes works. It's
    largely C code that exposes a Ruby that's slightly different...
    http://shoesrb.com/manual/Rules.html see "Shoes tricky blocks"

    Fabio, we'd love to have some contribution. Contact me off-list and I'd love
    to have your help.
    Steve Klabnik, Feb 1, 2011
    #6
  7. On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 05:42:42 pm Steve Klabnik wrote:
    > David, right now, they're 100% intertwined. That's the way that _why liked
    > it.


    Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you'll pardon the pun.

    > Not only that, it's actually pretty integral to how Shoes works. It's
    > largely C code that exposes a Ruby that's slightly different...
    > http://shoesrb.com/manual/Rules.html see "Shoes tricky blocks"


    My first impression is, those don't look terribly tricky, at least as far as
    implementation. self is changed via instance_eval. The "trick" of redirecting
    drawing seems like an implementation detail, not of the language, but of
    whatever classes you use to implement the DSL.

    Scrolling down, the only thing I see that looks tricky at all is the UTF-8
    support, and you'd think it would make sense to just use the Unicode support
    that's built into 1.9, rather than having an entirely different version of
    your own. In fact, it seems like this would cause a lot of problems for gems
    I'd want to use _in_ a Shoes app.

    If there's something I'm missing that absolutely has to modify the language in
    C, is there a reason it couldn't be implemented as an extension and scoped to
    Shoes?

    I don't mean to imply that the work involved would be trivial. I have
    absolutely no idea how much work it would be. I just don't see any major
    blockers here -- I really don't see a good reason why Shoes should carry its
    own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits, application
    frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.
    David Masover, Feb 2, 2011
    #7
  8. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    >
    > Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you'll pardon the pun.



    First of all, a disclaimer: I never met or talked to _why. So I can't really
    fully represent what his wishes were. That being said, you have to remember
    where Shoes came from: Hackety Hack. Hackety needs to have everything that
    it needs to function wrapped up inside of it: _why didn't want anyone to
    have to download anything else to get it working.


    > I don't mean to imply that the work involved would be trivial. I have


    absolutely no idea how much work it would be.


    Honestly, I can't think of anything in Shoes that would make it 100%
    necessary. But the effort to convert everything over would certainly be
    non-trivial.


    > I just don't see any major
    > blockers here -- I really don't see a good reason why Shoes should carry
    > its
    > own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits,
    > application
    > frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.
    >


    _why always referred to Shoes as an 'app toolkit.' He saw it as a different
    thing. And Hackety needs it to be that way.

    That said, we _are_ working on a pure Ruby Shoes, and it'll end up being the
    future of Shoes. That said, it's going to be a bit still, and we'll still
    have to work on getting the packaging system fully operational as well.

    All in good time.
    Steve Klabnik, Feb 2, 2011
    #8
  9. On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:41:07 am Steve Klabnik wrote:
    > > Ok. The question is why he liked it, if you'll pardon the pun.

    >
    > First of all, a disclaimer: I never met or talked to _why. So I can't
    > really fully represent what his wishes were. That being said, you have to
    > remember where Shoes came from: Hackety Hack. Hackety needs to have
    > everything that it needs to function wrapped up inside of it: _why didn't
    > want anyone to have to download anything else to get it working.


    That sounds like a problem for something like rawr. As far as I can tell, it's
    possible to have a rawr app which doesn't use monkeybars, and vice versa.

    > > I just don't see any major
    > > blockers here -- I really don't see a good reason why Shoes should carry
    > > its
    > > own version of Ruby, when we have all sorts of other GUI toolkits,
    > > application
    > > frameworks, and DSLs distributed as plain old gems.

    >
    > _why always referred to Shoes as an 'app toolkit.' He saw it as a different
    > thing. And Hackety needs it to be that way.


    None of which seems to contradict what you said here:

    > That said, we _are_ working on a pure Ruby Shoes,


    Hackity doesn't need Shoes as a whole to be that way, it just needs _some_
    sort of "app toolkit" -- again, something like rawr, though maybe rawr itself
    isn't appropriate. I can see why such an "app toolkit" might be tightly bound
    to a GUI toolkit, but I see no reason it should be the other way around.

    I don't think we actually disagree here.
    David Masover, Feb 2, 2011
    #9
  10. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    >
    > I don't think we actually disagree here.
    >


    Totally. Just explaining why things are the way that they are, and why they
    aren't different yet. :)
    Steve Klabnik, Feb 2, 2011
    #10
    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. Lucas Tam
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    496
    Lucas Tam
    Jun 17, 2005
  2. Anup
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,774
    Mark Rae
    May 9, 2006
  3. Noam Raphael
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    514
    Noam Raphael
    May 26, 2004
  4. Jon Davis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    834
    Jon Davis
    Nov 14, 2006
  5. Ravi

    start join start

    Ravi, Mar 6, 2007, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    310
    Patricia Shanahan
    Mar 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page