On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:06:38 +0900, Alexander Kellett
<ruby-lists / lypanov.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:50 AM, gabriele renzi wrote:
> > maybe he meant that we do not have, yet, a rubyish standard gui[1] or
> > audio engine, and that our engine is much slower than Squeak's.
> > Maybe it could be more interesting to hack a ruby interface *for*
> > squeak instead of reinventing the wheel :)
> 
> i can't stand squeak personally
> though it has some useful tools.
> 
> i'll try and do a rpa/gem for qtruby4
> whenever its out. maybe then we'll have
> an easy to install cross platform gui
> then we can actually make a good class
> browser :)
>
With Trolltech releasing qt4 for windows it would be interesting to
know the state of qtruby4 for windows? And Mac OS? Is it truly
cross-platform?

On the squeak issue: Depends on what you mean with squeak, there are
very many aspects to it. Related to the VM issues I've resurrected my
old writing from my last employer (Thanks Ryan!) and have a few
squeak-related rubyvm material up on this page

http://www.pronovomundo.com/projects/ruby/rubyvm/

although I think ruby2c is where similar kind of action has happening today.

On MorphR: I'm actually trying to find a student for finishing that
off this spring. We'll see what happens. I still think having a GUI
fully implemented in and thus controllable from/with pure Ruby would
be very useful.
 
Best,

Robert