Checkout these video tutorials (in shockwave):

	http://seriss.com/people/erco/fltk-videos/

After viewing them (especially the FLUID intro), I tried converting my 
Fox-Toolkit apps and found myself feeling really stupid for not choosing 
FLTK in the first place.

What's worse, I had "reviewed" FLTK in the past simply by looking at 
their website and passed it up as not having enough widgets and the ones 
they had were ugly.  Boy was I wrong...  Playing with FLTK+FLUID for a 
few minutes made me see that I can make dialogs look like Windows or Mac 
flavors simply by changing properties of widgets (ie. buttons have a 
wide variety of 2d/3d looks).

The ruby-fltk project appears to require mingw--which is unfortunate 
since Microsoft released Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 for free download and 
it has the same optimizing compiler as Visual C++ Professional 2003.

What would TRULY be exciting is a ruby-fluid project which converts 
fluid .fl files into .rb in the same way fluid converts .fl into .cxx.

My reason for switching from Fox-Toolkit to FLTK was inspired by 
licensing issues (related to static linking in commercial apps) but now 
I'm kicking myself for purely technical/productivity issues for not 
choosing FLTK.  And a bit dissappointed that FLTK isn't as popular as 
Fox in Ruby (perhaps due to the same misperceptions I initially had due 
to the crappy FLTK website screenshots).

Can some of you ruby experts take a quick glance at fluid .fl files and 
estimate how much effort it would take to convert them to .rb?  After 
all, they were designed to convert to .cxx and .h so it shouldn't be 
hard in theory.

Links:

http://www.fltk.org/                           home (I got 1.1.5rc2)
http://seriss.com/people/erco/fltk-videos/     video tutorials
http://www.osc.edu/~jbryan/FLU/                utility widgets
http://sptk.tts-sf.com/index.php               db-ware, themed widgets