Why is RJS so dependant on programatic creation of Javascript? RHTML is a great implementation in that it puts HTML first, and Ruby second. I would have thought RJS would be the same way: a .js with ERb helpers for generating Javascript functions. RJS putting Javascript second means: - I have to learn a whole new set of commands to use Scriptaculous. - Developers have to constantly chase the new implementations in Scriptaculous. Am I missing something? Is there a compelling reason for not using this? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
I hate writing JavaScript. It is horrible to debug. I prefer Rails and its abstraction. ~ Ben On 5/5/06, Sam Leitch <sam.leitch@sjrb.ca> wrote:> Why is RJS so dependant on programatic creation of Javascript? > > RHTML is a great implementation in that it puts HTML first, and Ruby > second. I would have thought RJS would be the same way: a .js with ERb > helpers for generating Javascript functions. > > RJS putting Javascript second means: > - I have to learn a whole new set of commands to use Scriptaculous. > - Developers have to constantly chase the new implementations in > Scriptaculous. > > Am I missing something? Is there a compelling reason for not using this? > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Ben Reubenstein 303-947-0446 http://www.benr75.com
Ben Reubenstein wrote:> I hate writing JavaScript. It is horrible to debug. I prefer Rails > and its abstraction.That''s a preferencial choice. I like the javascript helpers but they are just that: helpers. I think they should be there when you want to use them, otherwise they get out of the way. Another question, If I use a .rhtml template with all javascript, using ERb and Javascript helpers when I want to, will the result be automatically evaluated? Do I have to change the mime-type or something? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On May 5, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Sam Leitch wrote:> Why is RJS so dependant on programatic creation of Javascript? > > RHTML is a great implementation in that it puts HTML first, and Ruby > second. I would have thought RJS would be the same way: a .js with ERb > helpers for generating Javascript functions. > > RJS putting Javascript second means: > - I have to learn a whole new set of commands to use Scriptaculous. > - Developers have to constantly chase the new implementations in > Scriptaculous. > > Am I missing something? Is there a compelling reason for not using > this? >We hate writing javascript. You''re welcome to write it if you so desire. -Derrick Spell
> Another question, If I use a .rhtml template with all javascript, > using > ERb and Javascript helpers when I want to, will the result be > automatically evaluated? Do I have to change the mime-type or > something? >I could be wrong, but I think you can use an rjs template and do something like this: page << <<-JS // Lot''s of javascript, with maybe some Ruby #{} stuff ! JS -Derrick Spell
Sam Leitch wrote:> Ben Reubenstein wrote: >> I hate writing JavaScript. It is horrible to debug. I prefer Rails >> and its abstraction. > > That''s a preferencial choice. I like the javascript helpers but they are > just that: helpers. I think they should be there when you want to use > them, otherwise they get out of the way. > > Another question, If I use a .rhtml template with all javascript, using > ERb and Javascript helpers when I want to, will the result be > automatically evaluated? Do I have to change the mime-type or something?You can use .rhtml to return javasript just fine. prototype.js will only execute it though if the ContentType is ''text/javascript''. So set that header from your controller and you should be fine. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Sam Leitch wrote:> Why is RJS so dependant on programatic creation of Javascript? > > RHTML is a great implementation in that it puts HTML first, and Ruby > second. I would have thought RJS would be the same way: a .js with ERb > helpers for generating Javascript functions. > > RJS putting Javascript second means: > - I have to learn a whole new set of commands to use Scriptaculous. > - Developers have to constantly chase the new implementations in > Scriptaculous. > > Am I missing something? Is there a compelling reason for not using this?Also I want to say that html and js are very different beasts. HTML is a markup language, JS is a scripting language. You can use a pure ruby solution to generate html as well with builder, but most of time it just isnt necesary. However with javascript, it''s an ugly quirky language (at least compared to ruby) and many ruby programmers just feel more comforatble with: page[@some_div].visual_effect :highlight than $(''<%= @some_div %>'').visualEffect(Effect.Highlight); And as long as it really works, I consider it totally badass awesome that I don;t need to write JS directly most of the time. Of course to get the most bang for your buck you stil need to know javascript, but that doesn''t mean you are condemned to work in it. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.