Move Over AJAX, Make Room for ARAX

sasserstyl writes "eWeek reports that Microsoft's Silverlight platform will support Ruby client-side scripting, enabling ARAX — or Asynchronous Ruby and XML. Would be cool to have the option to script client-side in something other than Javascript. 'In essence, using ARAX, Ruby developers would not have to go through the machinations of using something like the RJS (Ruby JavaScript) utility, where they write Ruby code and RJS generates JavaScript code to run on the client, Lam said. "Sure, you could do it that way, but then at some point you might have to add some JavaScript code that adds some custom functionality on the client yourself," he said. "So there's always that sense of, 'Now I'm in another world. And wouldn't it be nice if I have this utility class I wrote in Ruby...' Today if I want to use it in the browser I have to port it to JavaScript. Now I can just run it in the browser."'"

Comments

So what makes ruby developers so special

[ncttrnl]

that they can't use more than one language like the rest of us?

This time

[Simon (S2)]

Microsoft did somethin cool and useful. I am absolutely 100% certain that almost every comment on this article will bash MS some way or another for this, but this time, this feature, is something grat. Everybody thinks that javascript just doesn't cut it for current Web Apps, and it was never meant to work like we make it work today. Switch to something else is just the right thing to do, and if it is ruby (or python or anything else that is FLOSS for that matter), that's just great. kudos for making the first step. Hopfully others will follow.

Re:This time

[Simon (S2)]

Under 1000 lines for drag & drop support? This looks like a moderate amount of code, taking into account that you only get raw mouse coordinates from the browser in JS, and that it supports IE. That's my point. 1000 lines of code to implement Drag&Drop is not a moderate amount of code for a feature that should be part of the language specification itself. If an html element had drag_start, drag_within and drag_stop events, just like Desktop GUI Widgets, all that code would be obsolete, and everything would be a lot cleaner.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[Jor-Al]

So in effect, it's worthless for any real world solution beyond someone's personal homepage that gets like 50 hits a day?

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[Ihmhi]

Something less secure than Java? Someone mod parent "-1, You've Got To be Shitting Me!" ^.~

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, it's like Java, if except that everything is declared as type object. It treats every object the same, and just assumes that all the functions you try to call exist, until it runs them. I really don't see why people like dynamically typed languages. It's like working in VB6 with everything defined as "Variant". Does not having variable types help in any way? Personally, I really like static typed languages. I never did understand why dynamic typing would help. My compiler catches a large percentage of my errors. I'd hate to have to run through all the code paths, just to ensure I didn't mistype a function call. Yes I know tests should do this anyway, but it's a little bit easier to get stuff up and running if you know all the function names are correct before you run it.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[pclminion]

Its nothing like Java.

Stunning insight. A language "for people who hate Java" is nothing like Java? Wow.

Re:Puh-lease... Ruby Is Redundant.(tm)

[KDan]

I wouldn't normally bother replying to someone like you, and I realise that I'll very likely get downmodded as flamebait or something, but after an irrepressible impulse of the kind well illustrated by http://xkcd.com/386/ , I must tell you.

You are wrong, and you are a narrow-minded cretin.

Daniel

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[ShieldW0lf]

However, the MVC architecture is triangular: the View sends updates to the Controller, the Controller updates the Model, and the View gets updated directly from the Model.

Which is wrong. The statement is contradicted by the very link embedded in it. In truth, the view directly updates the model and the view is modified indirectly by the model. The controller processes and responds to events, typically user actions, and may invoke changes on the model.

It's on Wikipedia. Fix it.

Re:Um, my browser doesn't support Ruby

[PietjeJantje]

I really don't mean to be pedantic.. but I'm going to be.

Anyway, my point is that you seem to have an awfully myopic view of things. *ploink*

Anyway, it's been a nice conversation. Until you became a pedantic asshole who defends his mvc framework with a stance of superiority.. shame. Was it such a shock? Poor boy. I find many so called OOP experts never considered the statelessness of the web. Such as you. It is strange that, after it is explained to you, you dismiss it by playing the instant expert.

P.S. How does the asshole reply feel?
P.S.S. I've forgotten more about OOP than you have ever known. Perhaps you should consider that for a moment, if your kind is capable of that (you are not).