RubyScript. Any browsers support this?=20I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
This worked for me in IE6:
<html>
<head>
<script for=3Dwindow event=3Donload language=3DRubyScript>
@window.alert "Hello World !"
</script>
</head>
<body>Hello World!</body>
</html>
n't workI tried it in IE6 (Version: 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519), did=
at play.n't work
That is the exact version of IE6 I have so there must be another issue =
Of course you have to install it - you only get VBScript and JavaScript
functionality out of the IE box.
I have done some searching on the web and have found very little about
RubyScript. Any browsers support this? The main thing I don't like
about AJAX is the Javascript, but using RubyScript as a replacement
would be cool.
t make working with JavaScript much more palatable and, in some ways, Rub=we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript ... publicize the libraries tha=
Well, I think that's what the OP was referring to, whether any
browsers supported it "Out of the Box". While RubyScript is cool and
great, it's not very useful for a public site if you have to hope the
users have installed the plugin first.
What we need, rather -- since we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript
as the defacto standard -- is to continue to publicize the libraries
like Prototype that make working with JavaScript much more palatable
and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
In all practical terms you are stuck with JavaScript on the client.
But I am curious how this could be done - make working with
JavaScript more Rubyesque. Unless the browser supports Ruby there
isn't much you can do that is Rubyesque. You can send XML, YAML or
JSON to the browser upon an xmlhttprequest but only the JavaScript
engine can do something with it. Would sending YAML to a JavaScript
enabled browser be considered Rubyesque?
Jacob said:Well, I think that's what the OP was referring to, whether any
browsers supported it "Out of the Box". While RubyScript is cool and
great, it's not very useful for a public site if you have to hope the
users have installed the plugin first.
What we need, rather -- since we're pretty much stuck with JavaScript
as the defacto standard -- is to continue to publicize the libraries
like Prototype that make working with JavaScript much more palatable
and, in some ways, Rubyesque.
I disagree with being stuck with javascript. People are stuck with
javascript as a programmer stuck to php. You have a choice, and you need to
force a user to install it. Wide usage will get more attention. If you also
look at the Mozilla project, they are embedded Python stubs in for the next
milestone so it will be easy to use XUL+Python. I really would want this to
be XUL+Ruby though.
Tsume
There is a difference though. PHP is server side, so migrating away from it
only forces installation ONCE on the server side. Migrating away from Java
Script involves forcing every single client to install X. While that draws
attention, most users simply won't bother, or will attempt to get the
information via some other means. This is bad for especially commercial web
apps.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.