Making the move...
mvreade at earthlink.net
mvreade at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 14 18:17:58 EST 2006
Thank you for your response. The main thrust of my apps are as
desktop apps, both LAN and WAN. However, there is an increasing
interest in being able to select some artworks and on the desktop app
and push the date to a web app for general viewing.
So I anticipate that the web apps would be VERY simple, and it might
even be possible to push the date into something like PHP-Fusion or
Joomla! There's no need to reinvent the wheel.
I have glimpsed at the "pickaxe" book on Ruby, and while it looks
like a very elegant language, it sure is DEEP.
I have ordered your book, by the way, and look forward to getting my
hands on it.
All the best,
On Mar 14, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
> Pardon me for jumping in here but I just went through a fairly
> extensive and
> intense period of working with Ruby on Rails and I'm a sort of long-
> Revolutionary so I figured I could add something to the discussion.
> Web applications in the sense Ruby on Rails defines them cannot be
> in Revolution. You *can* write CGIs and deploy stacks on servers
> and Web
> servers but there is, e.g., no Revolution plugin that would allow
> you to
> deploy a Rev app on a Web server so that a Firefox user could
> access it.
> You can, however, develop what are called Desktop Web Appliances (see
> http://www.daniels-mara.com/WebAppliances.htm) using Rev quite
> nicely. And
> with Altuit's amazingly powerful altBrowser (
> you can
> create custom browsers that embed the behavior of Firefox and/or IE
> on OS X
> and Windows, respectively. And creating Web-aware Rev apps is
> really a piece
> of cake.
> So if you just need an app to be able to deal with the Internet/
> Web, Rev is
> perfect. If, OTOH, you really need or want to build apps that
> reside on the
> Web and can be accessed out of standard Web browsers, then Rev
> won't work.
> In that case, Ruby on Rails is the best tool for creating such apps
> as I've
> seen but be forewarned: it's deceptively easy to do simple stuff in
> RoR but
> I found it dishearteningly difficult to use it to create anything
> real even
> after spending a lot of time, energy and money (see
> As for REALBasic vs. Revolution, Johnathan Lynch is basically right on
> target with his comments. I'd add one more: unless you already know
> syntax and/or have some familiarity with a Visual Basic-type
> Real isn't going to be very easy to learn or use. And as far as I
> can tell,
> database stuff is far more mature and accessible in Rev than in Real.
> On 3/14/06, mvreade at earthlink.net <mvreade at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I will. Could you please elaborate on the second question is asked:
>> 2) Revolution vs Ruby on Rails? You mean to say you use Revolution
>> to write browser enabled web-apps? Something I could access with
>> Firefox? If so, I'd love to hear more.
>> On Mar 14, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Lynch wrote:
>>> If you search the archives, you will find countless RunRev Vs. Real
>>> I think it breaks down to your needs and your programming style.
>>> For me,
>>> RunRev and Transcript just fit with my brain really well.
>>> use-revolution mailing list
>>> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>>> subscription preferences:
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
> Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
> Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>> From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode