Benefits over KJSEmbed?

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent

Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Jason keirstead on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @05:19

Not to be trolling, but, what exactly are the benefits of this over KJSEmbed (other than say, being able to use Ruby because you like it more)? To me, I see this has the distinct disadvantage of depending on a non-kde scripting engine - while KJSEmbed uses a totally, 100% KDE/QT engine (KJS) that every KDE install already has.

Related Links

·   Articles on Developer
·   Also by Jason keirstead
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by teatime on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @05:35

Unfortunately, kjsembed is not yet part of kdelibs (it's still in kdebindings, afaik), so it's not something "everyone already has". (Hopefully, this will change.)

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Qerub on Thursday 23/Sep/2004, @13:03

Eh. He was saying that every KDE install has KJS.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Richard Dale on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @07:18

QtRuby/Korundum (and PyQt/PyKDE) give you very complete coverage of the Qt/KDE apis. With around a 1000 classes and 30000 methods or so, they are 'heavy duty' eXtreme RAD environments. Kjsembed gives you a much smaller subset of the Qt/KDE api, and so it is more lightweight; the library is smaller and faster to load, and there is less to learn with just a subset of the target apis. If you can master PyKDE or Korundum, then great, but in spite of the simplicity of python or ruby, they do have *very* large apis and an associated steep learning curve, although not so steep if you follow the tutorials in the KDE ruby bindings Developers Corner..

Every KDE install has ruby and python bindings from 3.3 onwards, and so the argument about ubiquity no longer applies.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Morty on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @08:04

And don't forget all the high quality 3'rd party library's you get access to with Python and I presume the same is true for Ruby.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Philippe Fremy on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @08:09

QtRuby vs KJSEmbed ? The answer is simple: one is for ruby, the other for javascript. Both languages are fundamentally different. While not familiar with any of them, I know enough about their general characteristics to tell you that they do not appeal to the same programming style. Javascript is more simple, ruby is more complex. Some will say that javascript is too simple to do complicated tasks, other will tell you that learning ruby is too complex to do simple (or complex) tasks. It is all a matter of taste.

You can also take into account which community is around the language. Lot of web developers are with Javascript, lot of programming guys are with ruby. And so on ...

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by aleXXX on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @11:19

IMO ruby is the simplest language I know of, some people call it executable pseudo code :-)

Web developers use javascript since ruby/perl/python aren't supported (AFAIK) as client-side web-scripting language.

Alex

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Boudewijn Rempt on Monday 20/Sep/2004, @11:27

That was the line I always used to sell Python to management... Look! It's a design document you can run :-). I'm really happy that there's so much choice nowadays in bindings. Personally, if I have a suitable problem, I'd still go for PyQt, but I like my languages with as few punctuation marks as possible. Double colons remind me too much of the medical imagery I'm writing apps for nowadays.

Anyway, Cyrille Berger is working on a kjsembed plugin for Krita, and I'm going to get in touch with Jim Bublitz one of these days to ask him whether he can help me with a Python plugin.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Ian Monroe on Tuesday 21/Sep/2004, @07:35

Ruby may still need the occasional :: (especiall in RubyQt), but overall its fairly sparse in the punctuaction dept. No semicolons I guess being the biggest difference, as well as using begin and end to define most functions.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Richard Dale on Tuesday 21/Sep/2004, @08:32

Note than you can use an 'include Qt' or 'include KDE' directive if you prefer to have Widget over Qt::Widget, or Application over KDE::Application in your code. Thats much like the 'using' directive for C++ namespaces:

require 'Korundum'
include Qt
include KDE

about = AboutData.new("p2", "Hello World", "0.1")
CmdLineArgs.init(ARGV, about)
a = Application.new
hello = PushButton.new( a.i18n("Hello World !")
a.mainWidget = hello
hello.show
a.exec

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits over KJSEmbed?
by Richard Dale on Tuesday 21/Sep/2004, @08:38

Oops, syntax error, it should be:

hello = PushButton.new(a.i18n("Hello World !"))

And PushButton is ambiguous, does it mean a QPushButton or a KPushButton in this case? So maybe use the include directive with care..

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"Nobody will ever write that kind of HTML code!" -- The KHTML Team
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.