On Saturday, January 15, 2011 04:42:58 am Joseph Lenton wrote:
> David Masover wrote in post #975080:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2011 07:34:04 am Jonas Pfenniger (zimbatm) wrote:
> > 
> > A final point: Browsers are getting fast enough that we should be able
> > to do
> > Ruby in Javascript. And not a server-side implementation, either -- I
> > want the
> > equivalent of JRuby. But this isn't really a limitation of Ruby, it's a
> > limitation of browsers that we'd be working around. The above rants are
> > things
> > I actually feel are broken about Ruby as it is today.
> 
> I'm sorry to take this slightly off topic, but I just can't let this
> comment pass. I am currently building a language called Quby, which is a
> very Ruby-like language, that runs 100% in the browser (about 4,000
> lines of JS). There are differences (as it's Ruby-like not Ruby) with
> the main one being that it's tied to a canvas. But AFAIK it's the
> closest pure JS implementation of Ruby (although it's Quby, not Ruby).

There are two major issues I have with that:

First, why did you feel the need to fork Ruby syntax? I think I saw your post 
earlier, and I remember writing a long rant and then not sending it, but 
that's really my main problem with it. Why create a new programming language?

Reia has a good answer for that, incidentally, which was my other complaint 
about Ruby -- in Reia, as I understand it, every object is an actor. This at 
the very least forces a different standard library, and so many Rubyisms 
wouldn't work that by the time you had a version of Ruby running on Erlang, it 
would look so different from Ruby on MRI that it'd hardly be worth calling 
Ruby.

The browser just doesn't seem that way at all.

Also, why tie it to a canvas?

> Back on topic, my number one gripe with Ruby has always been 'unexpected
> $end, expecting keyword_end' parse error.
[...]
> The workaround is to usually cut out large chunks of my code and re-run 
> until it parses, as this will tell me which chunk I am missing the end. 
> Even if your file is only 500

I agree that it's annoying, but especially once you're at the point where 
you've got 500-line files, you really should be using version control. Then 
it's just a matter of looking at the ten or so lines you changed since the 
last revision, where it worked.