From: Yasushi Shoji
> From: Conrad Schneiker
>
> > How soon will we see a Ruby entry on http://glade.pn.org/links.html and
a
> > corresponding button on Glade itself (File --> Project Options -->
Language
> > --> Ruby)?
>
> as soon as glade2rb starts working (again :^) I shouldn't have put
> glade2rb in the archive after I stop coding it....  It is
> waaaaaaaaaaay behind now....
>
> BTW, I have a patch to put "Ruby" on the project option window, if you
> want. It doesn't do any good but it sure looks nice to have the word
> on it!

Would it be much work to make it at least plug in "ruby" instead of "c" or
"perl" into the language field when generating the XML project file?

> > IIRC, one or more of the other supported languages started out
> > with preliminary translator modules, so I would recommend pursuing this
 as
> > soon as possible. (This is also another place that will get people
asking,
> > "What's this Ruby language?". Also, since Ruby should excel at complex,
> > dynamic GUI development, in addition to making ordinary GUI development
> > easier, this would be a good place to indirectly call attention to
Ruby.)
>
> well, some people already asked me when i asked a few question in
> glade-devel list :^)
>
> > Is there some reason that glade2rb doesn't begin with
> > "#!/usr/local/bin/ruby" or with "#!/usr/bin/env ruby"?
>
> I'll fix that, but...
>
> > It would be nice if "glade2rb input.glade output.rb" were in the README
> > file.
>
> I just don't see any good reason why you want to use translator with
> script languages.  could someone please give me a good reason, and
> make me want to code glade2rb!

I think that thinking in terms of so-called "script languages" is
misleading (and even demeaning in Ruby's case), because this issues
applies to the other extension languages that Glade supports. There
are at least a couple of related issues that immediately come to mind.

(1) A full glade2rb would be nice to have so that you would not have
to reprocess the XML file every time you run some application,
especially if you have a large GUI, and you would like it to start up
quickly. It would help make applications more self-contained. (While
you could always internalize the XML files as a here-document, this is
troublesome to update.)

(2) Many people might want to use Glade and glade2rb to get a Ruby GUI
program started on a one shot basis, and then program stuff on their
own after that.  AFAK, working with pure Ruby/GTK+ code would be
simpler in such cases.

(I am very much a novice when it comes to GTK and Glade, so I may
misunderstand some of these issues.)

> and tell me how you want output.rb to be.  do you just want output.rb
> to have all the code, so that you can later include from your script?
> Or, do you want to have a file per window?  some OO way? (although,
> i'm not sure how ;p)

Good question. I think a single file with all the code (with maybe 1
module per window (for better name space management?)) would be OK.

> ps.  I don't think I have time to code by the end of this
> month...sigh..

Well, thanks for what you have done already.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)