[MacRuby-devel] 0.3 available for testing

[Laurent Sansonetti]

While shoes could indeed be re-implemented on HotCocoa (or even JRuby  
+ your toolkit library of your choice), I wonder if it's really  
meaningful.

This would be a nice project indeed, but at the end, what would be the  
advantage of using Shoes over HotCocoa? Shoes is very minimalist as  
you said, but HotCocoa is already very simple to use (and will be even  
simpler over time).

Laurent

On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> Have you looked at Shoes lately?
>
> http://shoooes.net/tutorial/
>
> It is very minimalist, and I think it would be straightforward to port
> over to HotCocoa.
>
> I second the idea that HotCocoa should use Shoes as a role model, even
> if it goes well beyond it.
>
> -- Ernie P.
>
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>
>> Joshua Ballanco wrote:
>>> Call it the Shoes challenge. I've started looking at doing something
>>> like this primarily to figure out where HotCocoa needs the most  
>>> work/
>>> focused attention. Originally I was thinking that Shoes could, some
>>> day, be a subset of HotCocoa, but I've changed my mind. I think
>>> HotCocoa should do it's best to encapsulate the full range of what's
>>> possible with Cocoa, and Shoes should stay a tiny-toolkit that makes
>>> GUI development easy.
>>
>> I've mostly given up on the idea of anyone ever creating a usable API
>> wrapper that works seamlessly across toolkits and platforms without
>> totally sucking. UI APIs seem to be one of those areas impossible to
>> wrap in a backend-agnostic API without a hell of a lot of hassle. See
>> SWT, which does a great job, looks mostly consistent, and yet has
>> constant portability problems and has taken dozens of man-years to
>> implement. Not worth it IMHO.
>>
>> What I would see as a better value is creating API wrappers that are
>> comprehensive, clean, ruby-like, and trying to cooperate on some  
>> vague
>> standards how what UI design/development in Ruby is supposed to look
>> like. Doing all that would mean a few things to me:
>>
>> - The APIs individually would be small enough that if someone *did*
>> want
>> to maintain multiple backends/platforms it would not be a big deal.
>> - Each API would be true to its backend, hiding nothing a user would
>> eventually need access to.
>> - The general "feel" of these APIs would be consistent across
>> backends,
>> even if developed independently, and so the general community  
>> benefits
>> from a bit more consistency in how these different classes of UI APIs
>> look and behave.
>>
>> - Charlie
>> _______________________________________________
>> MacRuby-devel mailing list
>> MacRuby-devel at lists.macosforge.org
>> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> MacRuby-devel mailing list
> MacRuby-devel at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel