RubyJS-Vite | Hacker News Reader

RubyJS-Vite

filipvrba.github.io

86 pointsthunderbong16 comments

Little confused as to why it has vite in it‘s name, it seems unrelated to https://vitejs.dev/

From the linked page:

"Since the Vite tool is a secondary feature of the RubyJS tool, it is appropriate to refer to the combined tool as RubyJS-Vite"

It's been a long time dream for me since about 2013 when I started getting deep into Ruby and Rails, to be able to write Ruby code for the frontend instead of JavaScript. I was a lover and adopter of CoffeeScript (which had it's flaws and imperfections), but that mostly got killed by ES6, and in truth ES7 and beyond made javascript a whole lot more tolerable so less need/motivation to use Ruby on frontend.

I wrote some PoCs with Opal[1] that felt pretty good to write, but the overhead was rough (this was many years ago so things might be different now) and I never really felt like I didn't have to know about or care about the underlying javascript. I tend to discard leaky abstractions as I feel they often add more complexity than they were meant to cover in the first place.

Has anybody used this or Opal or anything else? What is the state of "write your frontend in Ruby" nowadays?

[1]: https://github.com/opal/opal

With importmaps (https://github.com/rails/importmap-rails) and Hotwire (https://hotwired.dev/), you write plain js and serve it.

Also packages are served via CDN. There is no tree shaking. Rails got rid of the whole bundling step.

Ruby.wasm is here now, so you can run ruby in the browser. It still a bit big, but it even supports many regular gems. I met up today with a friend who is working on much smaller mruby version. He'll be giving a talk at rubykaigi next month.

I use Ruby.wasm with my own patch. [1][2] You can use the Javascript API and the syntax is a joy. I used it to make an electron app with videoplayer.[3] I also ported the rubykoans[4]

Lots of ruby.wasm talks at rubykaigi next month.

[1] https://github.com/largo/ruby.wasm

[2] https://github.com/largo/ruby.wasm-quickstart.

[3] https://github.com/largo/PsychometricStudyVideoPlayer

[4] https://koans.idogawa.com

I'm working on a framework inspired by React/Next.js which turns Haml into Ruby. It's 100% server side, but it runs pretty fast. I'm currently working on a rewrite, I just wish I had more time to work on it.

https://github.com/mayu-live/framework

https://mayu.live/

Was the Haml use (as opposed to ERB) a technical decision, or is it based on personal preference? Product looks really nice btw.

Thanks!

Both! I needed something like JSX, and I found Rux [1] but I had some issues with it, and then I found syntax_tree-haml [2] which gave me an AST that I could transform into Ruby. This is what the transformation looks like: https://gist.github.com/aalin/c0e4b0360a1f84d0283149fe4b2ce6...

I have always liked Haml because it's compact and easy to read.

[1] https://github.com/camertron/rux

[2] https://github.com/ruby-syntax-tree/syntax_tree-haml

Thanks for the clarification!

I can’t describe the feeling I get every time I see a bizarre project in the Ruby world, excited / thrilled is the closest feeling.

Imo, all documentation entry points like this link or a README should have the contents of this link's Introduction + Getting Started + Tutorial merged into the entry point page.

It's always so jarring when you land on a page like this, read the quick blurb, and then have to look around to see where you need to click to read more entry-level content but without clicking too deeply into API docs.

What a time to be alive, js turning into binary. So many runtimes, so many compiling strategies, like who would have thought this? It's been a crazy rollercoaster. First block this unsafe scripting language, then lets make this scripting language available everywhere.

What did you refer to when saying ”js turning into binary”?

WASM?

I think they are referring to the use of JS as a compile target

I love ruby and I love vite, but I can't help but think of this Jurassic Park quote when I see this: "Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should "

Reply on news.ycombinator.com