1. 4
  1.  

  2. 2

    This sounded familiar to me. Sure enough: http://www.advogato.org/proj/Ruby.js/

    I do not think they are related.

    1. 1

      I still haven’t wrapped my head around whether its a good idea or not, but it is interesting… Either way I do think it’ll have some trouble getting off the ground the way they approached the dual license – reminiscent of meteor.js when they first launched.

      1. 3

        Yeah, the licensing makes it near impossible for this project to get any traction. Not only is the licensing per-developer (?) for commercial use, the project uses the AGPL for non-commercial use.

        1. 1

          It’d be interesting to see an opinion on the AGPL and JavaScript, considering you never really do any ‘linking’ and no object code is produced.

          Also as long as you’re not doing Node, the AGPL shouldn’t be a problem.

        2. 2

          Agreed. Ruby’s best and worst feature is the standard library…

          1. 2

            Even without the licence I think I landed on that I think this is a bad idea. Sure it has a lot of feature the native ECMAScript doesn’t but when do we need the method centre? Why base a feature-set on another language instead of figuring out that is relevant for the problem we’re trying to solve. There is also a lot of libraries out there that solves this in a more clever way IMO (e.g Underscore).

            My biggest problem is introducing new objects for every thing and the need to convert them to native objects if you need to pass them to 3rd party frameworks or even parts of our application that is not converted to using RubyJS yet, especially when you need to convert them recursively. And just to call the methods from the prototype instead of via a method (e.g. Underscore’s each: _.each(array, function() {}) vs. array.each(function() {}))

          2. 1

            Not really a fan of the licensing on this library. So if I notice a bug with Ruby.js and I’m just a free user, what happens? How do I submit a patch back to the developers? It seems to be that I have to now pay for this right, which seems a bit silly to me considering I’m volunteering my time and energy on someone else’s project in order to make it better. This product, especially for the price, is much more of a risk than if it was open-source and developed by a transparent team of contributors. I wouldn’t recommend anyone use it until they release the actual code so we, as a community, can review it and catch any flaws that may/will come up…

            1. 2

              I don’t understand. It seems to me like as long as you release your patch as AGPL, you can just make a pull request against their github repo. Why would you have to buy a copy? Also, it seems like they did release the source code, unless I’m seriously misunderstanding what is in that github repository.