3 ms·
I tried to use it, settled on Shoes instead. Tk isn't free, you still have to install OS dependencies, and it's API wasn't very Rubyish. You'd think Ruby would
by vinceguidry 10y ago
I tried to use it, settled on Shoes instead. Tk isn't free, you still have to install OS dependencies, and it's API wasn't very Rubyish.
You'd think Ruby would be swimming in easy-to-use widget libraries. But it still isn't. Shoes fits most of my needs, though I'm still working on my workflows and tooling. It's annoying that I can't just write to the console or drop in a pry session, but I'm slowly figuring it out.
- woodruffw 10y agoYeah, Tk certainly isn't a pleasure to work with in Ruby. Maybe my experience was colored by the fact that it always worked out-of-the-box on my desktop (I guess the libraries were preinstalled). I've looked at Shoes multiple times for various projects and it always looks terrific, until I remember that installing it involves downloading a 64-bit binary from a website. I've bitten the bullet before and done it, but it's an (ugly) step backwards compared to `gem` and the Qt/Gtk+ bindings that can be installed via `gem`.
- steveklabnik 10y agoYeah, shoes :( Such potential. I could never quite get it updated to Ruby 1.9. Sigh.