On Dec 7, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Dan Diebolt wrote:

>> we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript ...  publicize the  
>> libraries that make working with JavaScript much more palatable  
>> and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
>
>   In all practical terms you are stuck with JavaScript on the client.
>
>   But I am curious how this could be done - make working with  
> JavaScript more Rubyesque. Unless the browser supports Ruby there  
> isn't much you can do that is Rubyesque. You can send XML, YAML or  
> JSON to the browser upon an xmlhttprequest but only the JavaScript  
> engine can do something with it. Would sending YAML to a JavaScript  
> enabled browser be considered Rubyesque?

I think he was pointing out that javascript is actually quite a  
dynamically language. It has higher order functions, you can extend  
an object at runtime, etc.


>     "YAML originally took off in the Ruby community as a better  
> XML ..."
>   http://ajaxian.com/archives/2005/11/json_yaml_its_g.html
>   I don't see RubyScript having any practical value over JavaScript  
> client-side.
>
> 			
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Shopping
>  Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping