((comp.lang.misc + cc: ruby-talk ML))

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / netlab.co.jp> wrote in message
news:874saqugz0.fsf / ev.netlab.co.jp...
> Hi,
>
> Dave Thomas <Dave / Thomases.com> writes:
>
> |> There are a great many applications that could be implemented with just
the
> |> standard Ruby distribution if it contained a ready-to-use GUI
> |> interface.
> |
> |Is this Tk?
>
> I'm not sure what Conrad has in mind, but if there's a toolkit which
> is faster

Might be possible, due to existing Tcl overhead.

> smaller,

Might be difficult, especially for something more advanced.

> more portable or

Well, one of the oldest and lowest common denominators will likely always be
more portable. How about just requiring portability to the most popular
platforms: Wouldn't UNIX/Linux + Windows 98/NT/2000 + Mac should cover 99+%
of Ruby users?

> easier to use than Ruby/Tk

Well, for more advanced things done using an OO-oriented GUI package, I
think this should be possible. I know many Pythons say wxWindows makes it
easier than Tk to do serious GUI projects.

> the current default GUI toolkit, I'm grad to switch.

Except you still have to go out and get Tcl/Tk separately. (And
unfortunately, they don't work for me on the two different OS's I've tried
them on.)

> I'm afraid that
> wrapper for wxWindows may be too big and complex to bundle in the
> standard distribution.

I can understand not wanting to have a distribution that's as bloated as the
typical Java IDE, but how big would be too big? I think Perl is currently
around 3.5MB, and it is still is gaining in popularity.

I would be much more worried about the complexity issue than size.

Conrad