Classic OOP style?

[rubyFeedback]

If I understand jrubyfx correctly then it is a DSL, where we use verbs to describe
what we want to have e. g.:

vbox {
}

And so forth.

Via ruby-gtk I am more used to:

x = Name.new

And then use .add() or << to chain widgets together.

Would it be possible for jrubyfx to also support that style? Where e. g. classes
from JavaFX are mapped 1:1? Like: JavaFX::TextArea.new or whatever the
name is?

I understand that in ruby everyone loves DSLs but I found them a lot more
complicated than classical OOP.

[byteit101]

Yes, that style should be supported as it's the style I prefer. See some of the non-dsl samples in fxml or contrib.

…

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022, 12:43 PM rubyFeedback ***@***.***> wrote: If I understand jrubyfx correctly then it is a DSL, where we use verbs to describe what we want to have e. g.: vbox { } And so forth. Via ruby-gtk I am more used to: x = Name.new And then use .add() or << to chain widgets together. Would it be possible for jrubyfx to also support that style? Where e. g. classes from JavaFX are mapped 1:1? Like: JavaFX::TextArea.new or whatever the name is? I understand that in ruby everyone loves DSLs but I found them a lot more complicated than classical OOP. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#131>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEM6QAFR24GNUXUDLYTRQDVW75DRANCNFSM55IGDLJA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>