Forum: Ruby Re: About Tcl/Tk

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Piet H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-09 17:24
(Received via mailing list)
Surgeon,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Surgeon [mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid]
>
> In order to build GUIs with Ruby, should I learn Tk?
> By the way, I have tried to find Tk tutorials and I have seen
> that all of them start with Tcl. Are Tcl and Tk "inseparable"
> things? If I want to use/learn Tk, should I learn Tcl first?
>

No need to learn Tcl if you want to lean Tk. Also, for building GUI's in
Ruby you shouldn't need to learn Tk, there are other options.
I have very good experiences with fxruby ( http://www.fxruby.org/ )
myself.
Almost everything I tried worked as expected, it's quite intuitive and
fast
and I was able to take my sources developed on a Linux box to a windows
machine and it just worked - no further tweaking needed.

Why did I first choose fxruby ? It seemed to be both mature enough and
able
to give me what I wanted fast without putting up too much of a fight.

Piet.
Surgeon (Guest)
on 2006-01-09 18:49
(Received via mailing list)
Oh, these are so nice! I didn't know them. Thank you very much indeed!
Surgeon (Guest)
on 2006-01-09 18:49
(Received via mailing list)
Oh, these are so nice! I didn't know them. Thank you very much indeed!
Surgeon (Guest)
on 2006-01-09 19:04
(Received via mailing list)
Is it possible to build a GUI with *NON*-native look and feel? I mean,
I am using Windhose XP and my target platform will be mostly Win, too
:--(  But I want to make my appz somewhat "Linuxish".

Can I do it?
tony summerfelt (Guest)
on 2006-01-09 19:37
(Received via mailing list)
Piet H. wrote on 1/9/2006 10:23 AM:

> Why did I first choose fxruby ? It seemed to be both mature enough and able
> to give me what I wanted fast without putting up too much of a fight.

just out of curiosity did you try fxruby with rubyscript2exe?

after playing around with gtk a bit, the only hanging point seem to be
easy deployment
Alex C. (Guest)
on 2006-01-09 20:23
(Received via mailing list)
> after playing around with gtk a bit, the only hanging point seem to be
> easy deployment

I was hoping ruby-gtk would be what I was looking for, but I haven't
started
yet and wouldn't mind hearing any problems you've had.

What sort of deployment issues are you having? Ability to deploy
on all three platforms ('nix, Mac, Win) along with ease of use
will be the deciding factor for choosing a toolkit for me.

But hopefully it wont look like ass either. Fox is a lot less
beautiful than gtk imo.
tony summerfelt (Guest)
on 2006-01-09 22:45
(Received via mailing list)
Alex C. wrote on 1/9/2006 1:21 PM:

> I was hoping ruby-gtk would be what I was looking for, but I haven't started
> yet and wouldn't mind hearing any problems you've had.

> What sort of deployment issues are you having?

didn't work with rubyscript2exe. i'd rather not have the customer
install gtk themself.

other than that i didn't mind the toolkit itself

> Ability to deploy> on all three platforms ('nix, Mac, Win)

i'm not able to try mac, but with *nix i would just hand over the
source and point them to the url's for the various toolkits.

*nix users tend to be more savvy than windows users when it comes to a
more manual installation. so for windows i just prefer to hand over a
one file executable...

as a last resort i can use tk, as i'm already familiar with tcl/tk
Jason Dewayne Clinton (Guest)
on 2006-01-10 05:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Monday 09 January 2006 12:21, Alex C. wrote:
> What sort of deployment issues are you having? Ability to deploy
> on all three platforms ('nix, Mac, Win) along with ease of use
> will be the deciding factor for choosing a toolkit for me.
>
> But hopefully it wont look like ass either. Fox is a lot less
> beautiful than gtk imo.

Check out RubyQt. It's a lot better than those mentioned already. I
believe that a free software versions for Win32 and Mac OS X (using Qt
4.1) are almost complete!
Jason Dewayne Clinton (Guest)
on 2006-01-10 05:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Monday 09 January 2006 11:03, Surgeon wrote:
> Is it possible to build a GUI with *NON*-native look and feel? I
> mean, I am using Windhose XP and my target platform will be mostly
> Win, too
>
> :--(  But I want to make my appz somewhat "Linuxish".
>
> Can I do it?

Both GTK and Qt can do what you're looking for and both have Ruby
bindings. You'll need to change the theme.
David V. (Guest)
on 2006-01-10 13:03
(Received via mailing list)
Surgeon wrote:

>Is it possible to build a GUI with *NON*-native look and feel? I mean,
>I am using Windhose XP and my target platform will be mostly Win, too
>:--(  But I want to make my appz somewhat "Linuxish".
>
>
For the sake of being nitpicky, I have to say that's a VERY bad thing to
do. Unless you have a sadistic desire to baffle your users, you should
try to keep the L&F of your applications consistent with either
conventions for the target platform, or perhaps more importantly with
other similar applications on the same platform. Besides, L&Fs aren't
really a thing that UI toolkits define, but rather how you design an
application. Besided, overriding controls to behave contrary to the
system defaults in all the details involved (like having selection copy
to the clipboard, or a single click launch an activation event instead
of a double click) is a lot of more or less pointless work.

<git kind="language Nazi">
  PS: By gods, do use proper english, I'd like to think of this as a
mature mailing list, not an IRC channel for 15 year olds. Thank you very
much.
</git>
tony summerfelt (Guest)
on 2006-01-10 16:36
(Received via mailing list)
Jason Dewayne Clinton wrote on 1/9/2006 10:25 PM:

> Check out RubyQt. It's a lot better than those mentioned already.

v4 out for windows yet? googling for it didn't come up with anything
usable...
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.