Yannick G. wrote:
Just a quick question: I’m sick of using Command Prompt for my little
Ruby programs, and I was wondering what can get me started? I know that
I can use Tk, but that isn’t very well documented in the Pickaxe.
Thanks!
Ruby + gtk2
Can utilize glade as a GUI builder if you want. (
http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/hiki.cgi?ruby-glade-create-template )
Site has several examples and tutorials and API reference.
On 3/10/07, John J. [email protected] wrote:
[For Qt] your mileage may vary and licensing is not free.
Aren’t the licensing fees for Qt waived if you’re using it for
non-commercial, open source software (or something like that)? It
seems like it used to be the case that you only had to pay the
licensing fees if you were using Qt for commercial development.
On 3/10/07, Caleb T. [email protected] wrote:
Agreed. FX and FXRuby are indeed great GUI toolkits (this coming
from a Qt guy). I simply started using Qt LONG before I ever picked
up Ruby, so QtRuby was a natural marriage for me.
Sending the love for Qt back your way. 
All of the “major” GUI toolkits for Ruby are pretty good. They all
have their little quirks, etc. My usual recommendation to folks is to
try out several of them on a little test program and see how it feels.
You also want to consider things like what kinds of documentation
(free or otherwise) and technical support (via forums, IRC, mailing
lists, etc.) is available for those times when you do run into
problems. There’s more to a choice like this than merely looking at a
feature list and flipping a coin.
On 3/9/07, Sharon P. [email protected] wrote:
Is anyone able to give a quick rundown on which of these toolkits
will work on both Windows and OS X?
FOX works on both Windows and OS X, but the OS X version runs under
the X server (i.e. it doesn’t use Carbon APIs directly).
Victor R. wrote:
I would like some
kind of GUI environment in which I can just grab a widget (i.e. a
drop-down-list or a radio button, Etc.) and drop it exactly where I want it
to be. […]
But, I’ve been waiting now for a few years and nothing yet! And I don’t
have the skills to write it myself. Oh Well, the story of my life!
Don’t the qt designer (fot qt) and glade (for gtk) do what you want?
Hello Group!
Although I don’t regularly don’t program much, mainly due to time, I
also
would like to find an easy way to use GUI within my Ruby programs.
I tried several toolkits, but I end up expending so much time dealing
with
the GUI widgets that I eventually give up altogether. I would like some
kind
of GUI environment in which I can just grab a widget (i.e. a
drop-down-list
or a radio button, Etc.) and drop it exactly where I want it to be.
I normally hate to pay for software if I can get it for free (but
legally),
but something like this drag and drop GUI fro Ruby I would be willing to
pay
for.
But, I’ve been waiting now for a few years and nothing yet! And I don’t
have
the skills to write it myself. Oh Well, the story of my life!
Victor
There is an Education License allowed on faith, but you do have to
wonder if lawyers won’t come knocking some day.
It is just something to be aware of. You do need to read that stuff
if you use it and put it into use.
On 3/10/07, John J. [email protected] wrote:
There is an Education License allowed on faith, but you do have to
wonder if lawyers won’t come knocking some day.
It is just something to be aware of. You do need to read that stuff
if you use it and put it into use.
Oh, sure, I definitely agree that people need to understanding the
licensing terms for the software that they’re considering using.
John J. wrote:
Actually, Qt has gotten a lot better, and does work on Windows and OS
X and linux with claimed native look and feel.
Your mileage may vary and licensing is not free.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding about the
Qt license is this – when you start a project, you decide which license
it will use – commercial or open source – and the project is forever
licensed that way. Say you pick open source. You download the open
source version, incorporate it into your project, and you can never
convert the project to a commercial one at that point.
Similarly, if you start a commercial project, buy the commercial version
of Qt, etc., you can never convert the project to open source. I’m not
sure how this fits with the Ruby license.
My own personal opinion is that most “open source” licenses are junk,
with the GPL being one of the worst. I think it’s high time someone came
up with an open source license that says something like this:
“This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source.
You can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it,
it’s your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it’s your
money and not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous,
it’s your fame and not mine. And I can’t prevent you from compiling it
and distributing the binaries without distributing the source, so you
can do that too.”
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
Caleb T. wrote:
their library or routine for building it, we can safely say it’s
supported there as well.Caleb
Oops … it doesn’t work on Windows? I lied! Bad me! Well, there’s
always Cygwin …
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
Um, how close is the BSD license to this “my code, don’t need to quote
me,
do whatever you want with it, but it’s consequences are all yours”
license?
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 02:21:23AM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
My own personal opinion is that most “open source” licenses are junk, with
the GPL being one of the worst. I think it’s high time someone came up with
an open source license that says something like this:“This software is copyright 2007 M. Edward Borasky. Here is the source. You
can do anything you want with it, but if you hurt someone with it, it’s
your fault and not mine. If you make any money with it, it’s your money and
not mine. If you do something with it that makes you famous, it’s your fame
and not mine. And I can’t prevent you from compiling it and distributing
the binaries without distributing the source, so you can do that too.”
That’s called the BSD licence.
Albert Ng wrote:
Um, how close is the BSD license to this “my code, don’t need to quote
me,
do whatever you want with it, but it’s consequences are all yours”
license?
The text of the BSD license is here:
The 2-Clause BSD License – Open Source Initiative.
I haven’t tried it myself, but wxWindows bills itself as being useable
on
Win, Mac, and *nix. I believe that
there is a library / framework for Ruby + wxWindows call wxRuby (
http://wxruby.rubyforge.org), but I don’t
know how well documented it is. The wxWindows home page is:
http://www.wxwindows.org/
There’s a very good wxWindows book available (Cross Platform GUI
Programming
with wxWidgets), and it has an open source license which also allows it
to
be used in proprietary software projects (
Licence - wxWidgets)
Caveat: It seems to have alot going for it, but I haven’t used it
personally, so do your own investigation, and YMMV.
Dennis
Thanks Hunter, very informative
I must say, that was a considerably non-painful read for a software
license
On Mar 10, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Timothy H. wrote:
Albert Ng wrote:
Um, how close is the BSD license to this “my code, don’t need to
quote me,
do whatever you want with it, but it’s consequences are all yours”
license?The text of the BSD license is here: http://www.opensource.org/
licenses/bsd-license.php.
Are there any lawyers out there who can explain the fascination with
all-caps
text in legal documents? Is there a legal interpretation of all-caps
text that
is different than mixed-case text?
Gary W.
On 10 Mar 2007, at 19:00, Albert Ng wrote:
Um, how close is the BSD license to this “my code, don’t need to
quote me,
do whatever you want with it, but it’s consequences are all yours”
license?
Well there’s always the “public domain”, i.e. no license and
absolutely no need for attribution. Of course that does require the
author to give up their right to place arbitrary restrictions on the
dissemination of their work…
Ellie
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
Eleanor McHugh wrote:
Public domain is close to what I want … however, I think the open
source gang has some problems with “public domain”. And I want something
that says if someone figures out a way to destroy a city with my code
that I’m not the one who gets tried for war crimes. 
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
Albert Ng wrote:
license?
The text of the BSD license is here:
The 2-Clause BSD License – Open Source Initiative.
It is very close to the license I use for RMagick. My personal
interpretation is “do what you like with this software, but don’t lie
and say you wrote it.”
On 11 Mar 2007, at 16:39, I. P. wrote:
EM> absolutely no need for attribution.
It’s correct only for USA (and probably few other countries). In most
jurisdiction public domain works require attribution.
Interesting. So in those jurisdictions a widely distributed anonymous
work wouldn’t count as public domain?
Ellie
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs