Re: [ruby-99] Would you want a JQuery / PureMVC port?

From: Paul H.
Sent on: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:32 PM
Aaron, thanks for the quick response.

I know JS.  I like JS.  Clearly, JS.class is in the category of making JS more like another language, i.e. Ruby.  I would argue that it is done exceptionally well -- specifically it provides Ruby-style class structures and inheritance.  I personally feel that JS benefits from that capability. From perspective, this particular author is a an absolute GENIUS.  For me at least, I would not agree that JS.class is any form of hack. 

I hear what you 're saying about repeating domain models.  PureMVC uses proxies that can represent Ajax calls -- hopefully ameliorating that concern to an extent.  In any event, people today do write RIAs, for better or for worse.  My hope is that an appropriate architecture with an appropriate implementation can reduce the complexity that people already experience today.  No matter how well one knows JS, it's not an architecture.  One has to manage the complexity arising from a requirement for a "richer" app.  That can either be done a project by project basis, or with something that aims to be more reusable. 

What I like about PureMVC is that it is VERY light.  What I like about the combo of JS.class and JQuery for PureMVC is that it reduces the burden on developers for learning complicated new skills.  While PureMVC is a paradigm that is not familiar to many Rails developers, it's better than the alternative. That alternative would be to re-invent an architecture on the fly, which is clearly more difficult for most people to do.  And finally, I don't think it would take a lot of effort.

Thanks again for taking the time to provide feedback.

Regards,
Paul Hamann



From: Aaron Blohowiak <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Fri, April 16,[masked]:13:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ruby-99] Would you want a JQuery / PureMVC port?

There are two questions here.  1) Would an RIA framework for JavaScript built on jQuery be a good thing? 2) Is making JavaScript more like other languages a good thing?

1) Sure, depending on your application.  If it easily maps to being able to call .to_json on the result, all the better!  However, you will have your domain model represented in two places (javascript and in ruby.)  For some applications and groups, this is o-k.

2)  No.  JavaScript is a beautiful little language.  Learn it and use it.  Most JS developers end up hating the hacks they come across trying to make it act more like other languages rather than learning it for its own accord.

- Aaron
 
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Paul Hamann <[address removed]> wrote:
Greetings.  I guess I'm feeling participatory today.  I usually just lurk.

I'm collecting opinions on the value of a potential open source project.  It's a "skunk works" type activity, really. I feel it might be useful to Rails developers, particularly those who use JQuery but want an OO alternative to Flash for RIAs.  I'm also looking ahead to HTML5, and the opportunity for normal browsers and JS to do what flash does today.

Please allow me a moment to explain.  I came across this framework, which I understand is popular with some Flash developers: www.puremvc.org.  It's not a RESTful CRUD framework, like Rails.  It's more for handling reusable UI widgets that need to communicate in a desktop-like application.  As you can see on the homepage, it has already been ported with MooTools.  As I understand it, MooTools offers 00 capabilities, which JQuery clearly does not.  For me, I'd like an architecture for RIAs that re-uses tools that Rails developers already know and love.  Clearly, that includes JQuery.  Here's the real "secret sauce":  http://jsclass.jcoglan.com/ . This toolkit is exceptionally well thought-out and implemented by a single architect.  This same author also used it to create an OO wrapper around YUI called Ojay, which is excellent. http://ojay.othermedia.org/ .  Clearly, JS.class has been used to wrap a JS framework, and very successfully so.  JS.class is as
 close to Ruby as JS is going to get.  There are many posts on how to extend Jquery in a more OO direction.  I would argue that implementing pureMVC in JS.class with Jquery as the underlying DOM manipulation and AJAX framework is a good way to get a solid OO architecture for RIAs.

Here's my not so simple question:  Does the world need this?  If you agree or disagree, I'd appreciate a few comments on how I should think about the value of this project to the Rails community.

Regards,
Paul Hamann




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
http://www.meetup.com/silicon-valley-ruby/
This message was sent by Paul Hamann ([address removed]) from Silicon Valley Ruby Meetup.
To learn more about Paul Hamann, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup.com/silicon-valley-ruby/members/7983401/
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here: http://www.meetup.com/silicon-valley-ruby/settings/
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Aaron Blohowiak ([address removed]) from Silicon Valley Ruby Meetup.
To learn more about Aaron Blohowiak, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy