From: schneik / us.ibm.com
Subject: [ruby-talk:02178] Re: Ruby/Glade usage questions.
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:37:41 -0600

> 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?

it does.  I think some sample .glead files in Glade/Ruby alread have
ruby instead of 'c' or 'perl' :^) I didn't change them by my hands for
sure.

glade is indeed very well coded, IMO.

> > 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!
>
> (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.)

I understand that.  However, Ruby also process .rb file(s) every time
you run your script.  And other modern script interrupters do the same
thing.  That's why I used the word 'script languages'.

time to add 'dump' feature to ruby? ;P

note: I'm not saying I will not code glade2rb.  I also think it will
help start up time. (haven't take any benchmark, though.)
--
        yashi