I have been intrigued by the power and elegance that Opal offers in the way of using pure Ruby vs CoffeeScript or, of course, JS.
How would one go about leveraging Opal for Meteor as the primary language for development?
UPDATE: just wanted to share that we have shifted focus over to Volt for our realtime needs in an isomorphic environment that offers Ruby from bottom to top. It has been a fantastic experience and even Matz has tweeted about it a few times now.
I just released an initial version.
This will compile Ruby files to Javascript, but there is nothing meteor specific (yet).
I plan on porting Meteor to a Ruby class at some point, stay tuned or even better submit pull requests...
Yes, check out how the coffeescript package is implemented in Meteor in order to compile .coffee to .js. Specifically, the following
https://github.com/meteor/meteor/blob/devel/packages/coffeescript/package.js - The undocumented _transitional_registerBuildPlugin function which tells meteor how to turn coffeescript files into js files
https://github.com/meteor/meteor/blob/devel/packages/coffeescript/plugin/compile-coffeescript.js - The script that compiles files and generates source maps.
https://github.com/meteor/meteor/blob/devel/tools/bundler.js for how compiled files are served.
If everything is super well designed, you probably shouldn't have to touch the bundler to create a smart package that will build OpalRb files. However, I'm guessing that you are probably going to have to fire off a pull request or two to core in the bundler area in order to get it to play well with your package. Right now, the preprocessor treats all files individually, which may not be possible with your language (I'm not sure.) In the process, however, you'll be contributing to make Meteor's support of other JS dialects and compilers even better!
I'll reiterate my point that Coffeescript seems ideal if you want some sort of high level language for writing JS, especially since it supports in-browser source maps for debugging now.
Maybe a little late on the boat: I wrote a build plugin for Opal in Meteor.
You can find it on atmosphere https://atmospherejs.com/massimoronca/opal https://atmospherejs.com/mikamai/opal
You can install the plugin using
meteor add massimoronca:opal
meteor add mikamai:opal
Every file ending in .rb or .js.rb will be automatically compiled.
You'll have to wrap Meteor builtin Objects, until I'll release a package that does that, you can find a small example on how to do it in this gist https://gist.github.com/wstucco/42392ee21b76dfa3ef83
For example the Meteor global Object can be wrapped in Opal like this
class Meteor
def self.server?
`Meteor.isServer`
end
def self.client?
`Meteor.isClient`
end
def self.cordova?
`Meteor.isCordova`
end
def self.startup(&block)
`#{block.call if block_given?}`
end
end
and used this way
puts "Hello from server" if Meteor.server?
EDIT: moved the plugin under the Mikamai account
Related
So I've started using VsCode over Atom recently and love it, the issue is I develop for software that uses its own JS API with no proper integration into anything.
I've started trying to implement my own autocomplete/intellisense structure using their pdf into VsCode to speed up my workflow, currently I'm simply using a JS file that is full of empty functions and objects with a bunch of JSDoc comments to help VsCode Intellisense identify what's what, that seems to be working fine so far but it means importing this "useless" file into every project I work on.
I looked into extending the JS language using a language server but that seems way too complex for what I need (plus it looks like I'd be building the entire Javascript language from scratch).
Does anyone have any recommendations ect?
Kind regards.
Edit
Sorry I also would like the ability for it to pass linting as right now it gets a bit funky with it.
You likely do not need an extension for that your example use case.
VS Code's intellisense for libraries is powered by .d.ts typing declaration files. The declaration files for the library you are using can either be written in your current workspace as you are currently doing, or—preferably—shipped with the library itself. Many npm modules ship their with typing definitions files, while other libraries have typing definition files provided by the community through DefinitelyTyped.
You alternatively bundle d.ts types file into as a separate npm package that you include in any project that needs them
I'm creating a little SPA framework (might be a full-feature framework).
Frontend is based on native javascript (including ES6 features and web-components).
Backend is written in Go.
Here is a list of my needs, that I'd like to do automatically:
Minify my javascript files
Transpile ES6 code to ES5 (with something like babel.js)
Polyfill my web-components
Is there a way to achieve this without using node.js? Are there already go packages that can make those 3 things happen, with a "simple" grunt/gulp-like way?
I would like to avoid installing node.js, npm, bower... etc.
In my (not very classified) oppinion, using those node.js tools makes my application a mess adding a lot of unnecessery overhead to my application folder and makes my framework dependant on a lot of stuff (that application programmer has to learn, understand and know how to use).
Thanks for any tips/oppinions.
If you're doing a SPA you should just stick with gulp and others. You'll probably end up using npm stuff like browserify, autoprefix, etc, and you'll basically end up reinventing the wheel with your own asset pipeline.
With that said I've seen a couple, but none of them looked very mature last time I looked:
https://github.com/jbowens/assets
https://github.com/shaoshing/train
and you're going to need npm installed to use them regardless.
As part of my trying to learn web development, I have reached a point were I have some coffeescript classes I would like to test inside my rails environment.
I have a rails 4.03 app that I have been working on (it is based off the rails tutorial).
During the process of learning rails, I got used to working with rspec and FactoryGirl, so I would like to try to follow a similar flow for the coffeescript if possible.
I wrote all my coffeescript as individual classes, each in there own file, so I think they should be testable.
I currently have teaspoon installed, which looks a lot like rspec. I have this working with some basic tests, but now I need to start writing real tests. Teaspoon has support for fixtures, but I noticed that there is a node.js package called factory_girl, which seems like it is a port of the ruby FactoryGirl for rspec. I installed this package using npm -install and now I have it listed in my rails folder under "node_modules".
Can someone tell me if it is possible to use this package to generate objects for testing with teaspoon, and if so how?
Update:
I am marking the answer below as accepted, because I was able to get FactoryGirl to run.
What I did was (as suggested in the answer) was to copy the factory_girl.js file into a location that could be loaded by the assets pipeline spec/javascripts/support, and then required it in the spec/javascripts/spec_helper.coffee file.
The problem is that the functionality does not seem to match what happens in rails (unless I am completely forgetting how it worked in rails). In Rails, I could define a factory for a model and the objects created would be instances of the class I was associating the factory with. Here there does not seem to be any association with the class I am trying to generated instances of. For example, only the properties I define in the factory definition are available, and none of the methods are defined on the objects.
I could be doing something completely wrong , or maybe trying to use coffeescript breaks this somehow.
Teaspoon doesn't use node (mostly), and is primarily rails based in terms of the runner foundation. On top of the rails layer, it uses Jasmine, Mocha, or QUnit as browser test frameworks.
Trying to load a node module in to that is not really easy, or possible in some cases. If factory_girl.js can be loaded into a browser in theory you could require the file (if it's in an asset path) within your spec helper and then use it however you want.
Disclaimer: I'm the primary author of Teaspoon, but have never used factory_girl.js (but have used factory_girl the gem).
In order to build static web pages to serve interactive news applications (mostly data visualizations scripted with something like D3 or lightweight apps built with Bootstrap.js), is it worth the effort to install and configure a build system like Middleman or Grunt.js?
The reason why I am asking is because I am not familiar with Ruby and Ruby Gems at all, and do not have the time and willingness at the moment to dwelve deeper into it, as I already know Python & Javascript pretty well.
Do I need to know Ruby in order to use Middleman productively? Or should I just use Grunt? I am asking because I want to reuse the same templates over and over again and heard that this is easy with Middleman.
There is a distinct difference between Middleman and Grunt.
Grunt is a generic task runner while Middleman is a static site generator.
Middleman for example would be used to create a site with multiple URLs. You put some files in a folder and Middleman takes care of arranging them, creating subfolders for URLs, rendering layouts, compressing assets and in the end you have a bunch of files that represent the site. All this is built in.
You don’t necessarily need to know a lot of Ruby to get started with Middleman, but to get the most out of it, understand how it works and change configurations to your needs, basic Ruby knowledge is key.
Grunt on the other hand works by using plugins and telling them exactly what to do. By default it does nothing. You could think of Grunt as "framework", ready for you to add tasks. Compress these two css files. Combine these JS files and move theme over here. Things like that.
For building a complete website I recommend Middleman. In order to be able to use the templates you create in another language like JS, you could use Jade as a templating language. By default Middleman uses ERB (part of the Ruby standard library). Another popular choice is HAML, but I’m not sure if there is a decent JS compiler for it.
If you want to have really fine grained control over the output of your JS files (you’re talking about JS client side apps in your question) you can even use Grunt and Middleman together. Grunt would take care of the assets (you can have really detailed configurations there) and Middleman would handle templating, URL generation and all the other "default website related" stuff.
If you're keen to use Grunt as a base for this sort of build, you may like to look at Assemble.io.
This is a static-site generator like Middleman, but one that is completely (currently) dependant upon Grunt tasks in order to do its thing.
I believe the learning curve for Assemble.io is rather higher than Middleman. It is based on Node, rather than Ruby. However I don't believe it's necessary to know Ruby in order to get a lot from Middleman.
You may have a look to http://wintersmith.io/ a static page generator like Jekill or MiddleMan (I don't really know this one)
With Grunt you have something at a lower level: Grunt provides you tasks to automate things so you'll have to find or write the task that fits your needs.
So we're writing a full-text search framework MongoDb. MongoDB is pretty much javascript-native, so we wrote the javascript library first, and it works.
Now I'm trying to write a python framework for it, which will be partially in python, but partially use those same stored javascript functions - the javascript functions are an intrinsic part of the library. On the other hand, the javascript framework does not depend on python. since they are pretty intertwined it seems like it's worthwhile keeping them in the same repository.
I'm trying to work out a way of structuring the whole project to give the javascript and python frameworks equal status (maybe a ruby driver or whatever in the future?), but still allow the python library to install nicely.
Currently it looks like this: (simplified a little)
javascript/jstest/test1.js
javascript/mongo-fulltext/search.js
javascript/mongo-fulltext/util.js
python/docs/indext.rst
python/tests/search_test.py
python/tests/__init__.py
python/mongofulltextsearch/__init__.py
python/mongofulltextsearch/mongo_search.py
python/mongofulltextsearch/util.py
python/setup.py
I've skipped out a few files for simplicity, but you get the general idea; it' a pretty much standard python project... except that it depends critcally ona whole bunch of javascript which is stored in a sibling directory tree.
What's the preferred setup for dealing with this kind of thing when it comes to setuptools? I can work out how to use package_data etc to install data files that live inside my python project as per the setuptools docs.
The problem is if i want to use setuptools to install stuff, including the javascript files from outside the python code tree, and then also access them in a consistent way when I'm developing the python code and when it is easy_installed to someone's site.
Is that supported behaviour for setuptools? Should i be using paver or distutils2 or Distribute or something? (basic distutils is not an option; the whole reason I'm doing this is to enable requirements tracking) How should i be reading the contents of those files into python scripts?
The short answer is that none of the Python distribution tools is going to do what you want, the exact way you want it. Even if you use distutils' data_files feature, you're still going to have to have your javascript files copied into your Python project directory (i.e., somewhere under the same directory as your setup.py.)
Given that, you might as well just copy the .js files to your package (i.e. alongside mongofulltextsearch/init.py) as part of your build process, and use package_data or include_package_data=True.
(Or alternatively, you could possibly use symlinks, externals, or some such, if your revision control system supports those. I believe that when building source distributions, the Python distribution tools convert symlinks to real files. At least, you could give that a try.)