DÅ?a Streda 22 FebruÃ¡r 2006 22:06 Jeff P. napÃsal:
Gregory S. wrote:
primary failings are:
- Minor implementation inconsistencies between browsers
- Major API inconsistencies between browsers
Just plugging Ruby into browsers wouldn’t really solve the API problems.
language ones, and the W3C document API ones. If there are
at least there’s authoritative points of reference to support these.
Also, you can’t possibly plain plug in the existing Ruby into browsers
the board. Unfortunately there is no standard governing client-side
in general, so if nothing else, making the required plugins would take a
while. Also, the interpreter would have to go through some trimming to
sandboxing. Bits of the standard library would have to go away due to
being unnecessary or unsuited for browser scripting (Tk, readline?).
not all browsers were created equal, so there’d be further trimming of
the language and libraries to cater for mobile devices and the like. And
sooner or later, Microsoft would decide to “improve” things and bundle
with “Ruby Blunt: Whizbang Edition”, and the list of things goes on and
The bottom line is, you’d very probably end up with something that is at
partially repeat itself. Switching languages is not the solution for
with browser scripting, and I’d dare say it’s not even -a- solution for
be all you who don’t deploy to proprietary set-top-box browsers).
That said, it’s not an unworthy goal, but there’s quite a lot to do
it’s actually good for anything serious, like letting Ruby loose on the
unsuspecting web, with early-adoption problems aplenty on the road.