I've been recently experimenting with one of the widely recommended MVC client-side frameworks (Backbone, in this case). I find it quite nice, but I have an issue with it: suppose I'm building a list of contents, which I want to present on browsers using client-side rendering, but also want to make available for search engines, which do not run javascript. That means, I'll also have to render stuff on the server-side. Now, let's say I'm using Handlebars.js, whose template language is inherited from mustache. All is well. But on the server, I'm using ERB (or HAML, whatever). That means, I'll have to support more than one version of the same template. Which is just unmaintainable, for cases where your templates going beyond the list-element 4 lines of code. How are the big platforms working around this issue?
Unix configuration files come in all shapes and forms. I know that Webmin has a Perl API that makes it easy to parse and modify most common configuration programmatically, while preserving changes that might have been made by hand.
Are there any other libraries that has similar functionality, perhaps for other languages (Python, Ruby, C, C++, etc)?
At least for Python there are numerous libraries that intends to simplify parsing. One of the simplest might be picoparse (http://github.com/brehaut/picoparse) which is constructed to provide straight forward parsing without the need of regexps.
Another one worth a look might be funcparselib (http://code.google.com/p/funcparserlib/) also for python.
If you intend to use C the most common tools for building parsers are Yacc and Flex. These tools are rather complex and has a rather high threshold before being usable.
Ajenti, an alternative for Webmin written in Python uses reconfigure.
It is not as mature and complete as Webmin and it's API, but reconfigure looks like as good an answer to this question as I am able to find.
The issue is that I've written a Safari plug-in (Growler) that allows web applications to send Growl notifications by calling Javascript functions. However, at the moment the way it is written, people need to use <embed> to initialise the plug-in so that Javascript can begin using it (something I picked up from Apple's examples).
I was wondering if there was a way I could define something like window.<pluginName> so that they didn't have to embed it everytime? That'll allow a lot of sites to begin using it without changing any code.
I've looked at a lot of examples and documentation, and two things came up — 'WebView' and 'WebScriptObject'. I'm pretty new to this, so I'm not really sure what to do.
There's no way to write a WebKit plug-in that doesn't handle a content type. That's why so many Safari “plug-ins” or “extensions” (including GrowlSafari) are implemented as input manager hacks.
The way you've done it is the only reliable, safe, supported, and not doomed way to do it.
Just say you have a quite large and complicated desktop application written in objective-c/cocoa written properly in MVC. You then wish to replace the V and C so that it is a web application?
Is there anything like Tomcat but for objective c? The closest thing I can think of is somehow convert the Model code into an apache module to load in apache?
Obviously I could embed some sort of HTTP server and write a whole pile of code to manage sessions and requests and responses and so on, but might there be a simpler way?
You can leave the server almost as-is. I'd run it as a daemon in the background.
I'd split the controller part. One part of it resides on the server as a connection between HTTP requests and the daemon.
You could run a self-made http server.
You could build it into a Apache module as you mentioned.
You could access your controller through CGI. This is the easiest option as I see it.
The second part of the controller is written in Javascript in the browser, exchanging data with the server and updating the GUI.
The view part is written completely in javascript.
You could - if you want - leave out the controller on the server and make the model understand HTTP requests.
For the Controller / View part consider using a framework.
jQuery for only a light interface. (Or a similar framework.)
I haven't yet found a framework that leaves all the model stuff to the server. Maybe you can use SproutCore or Cappuccino accordingly.
SproutCore, the full-backed MVC framework that is used by Apple. (Think so at least.)
Cappuccino, another full-backed MVC framework.
Have you looked at Cappuccino? http://cappuccino.org/
I have not used but have heard many good things about it.
There is a new web development platform for Objective-C/Cocoa called Bombax. It sounds like exactly what you're looking for (it is designed to allow you to write entire web applications in Objective-C). Perhaps you could even combine it with Cappuccino. You can check it out at http://www.bombaxtic.com.
The closest you'll probably come to Objective-C web frameworks are either SOPE, or GNUStep, neither of which I have used, but ran across when I was deciding if I wanted to use Rails or something written in Objective-C for my web stuff. There's also ARJDatabase, which is kind of like Core Data, but not source compatible.
The bottom line is, unless you were very careful about how you wrote your code (i.e. wrote it with GNUStep in mind, didn't use anything Apple specific) you're probably going to have to do quite a bit of work anyway. And if you used Core Data at all, there's no way I know of to reuse that outside of a Mac App. And since it's not setup to be used my multiple simultaneous users, you wouldn't want to use that in a web app anyway. Bottom line, I went with Rails.
There is Frothkit - http://code.google.com/p/frothkit/ but it appears not to have been updated for a year.
As already discussed in "Lua as a general-purpose scripting language?" Lua currently probably isn't the best scripting language for the desktop environment.
But what do you think about the future? Will Lua get so popular that there will soon be enough libraries to be able to use it like Python, Ruby or something similar?
Or will it simply stay in it's WoW niche and that's it?
I think it has a great future, a lot of projects are starting to adopt it for it's simplicity and usefulness.
Example: Awesome WM (Window Manager)
The project recently released version 3, incorporating a new configuration system completely written in Lua. Allowing you to literally write your configuration file as a program, loops, booleans, data structures.
Personally I love the syntax and the flexibility of such a system, I think it has great potential.
I wouldn't be surprised if it became more popular in the future.
Brian G
I suppose the answer starts with 'It depends how you want to use it...'.
If you're writing the common business app (fetch the data from the database, display the data in a web page or window, save the data to the database), Lua already has what you need.
The Kepler Project contains goodies for web development. Check out their modules to see some of the available libraries - there's network, MVC, DBMS access, XML, zip, WSAPI, docs...
As an example web app, check out Sputnik.
For desktop UI, there's wxLua - Lua hooks for wxWidgets.
ORM is conspicuously missing but that didn't stop people from developing in other languages before ORM was available.
If you're looking for specialized libraries - scientific, multimedia , security - don't count Lua out before you check LuaForge.
When it comes down to it, there's nothing in Lua's design that prevents general purpose use. It just happens to be small, fast, and easy to embed... so people do.
Uh? I would say instead WoW is a niche in the Lua ecosystem... The world of Lua doesn't revolve around WoW, there are lot of applications, some big like Adobe Lightroom (to take a non game), using Lua.
Lua is initially a scripting language, in the initial sense, ie. made to be embedded in an application to script it. But it is also designed as an extensible language, so we will see progressively more and more bindings of various libraries for various purposes.
But you will never get an official big distribution with batteries included, like Python or Perl, because it is just not the philosophy of the authors.
Which doesn't prevent other people to make distributions including lot of features out of the box (for Windows, particularly, where it is difficult to build the softwares).
Lot of people already use it for general system-level scripting, desktop applications, and such anyway.
There are more and more libraries for Lua.
If you are a Windows user, have look at Lua for Windows. It comes with "batteries included" (wxLua, LuaCURL, LuaUnit, getopt, LuaXML, LPeg...).
Very usefull!
It's 2017, 9 years after this question was first asked, and lua is now being heavily used in the field of machine learning due to the Torch library.
I really like it as an embedded language. It's small, very easy to use and embed and mostly does what I need right out of the box. It's also similar enough to most languages that it has never really been an issue for me. I also like how easy it is to redefine and add base functions and keywords to the language to suit whatever needs my application has.
I have used it in the WoW area but I've also found it useful as a generic scripting language for a number of different applications I've worked on, including as a type of database trigger. I like Ruby and Python and other more full-featured scripting languages but they're not nearly as convenient for embedding in small applications to give users more options for customizing their environments.
being comfortable as a shell language has nothing to do with being a great general purpose language.
i, for one, don't use it embedded in other applications; i write my applications in Lua, and anything 'extra' is a special-purpose library, either in Lua or in C.
Also, being 'popular' isn't so important. in the Lua-users list periodically someone appears that says "Lua won't be popular unless it does X!", and the usual answer is either: "great!, write it!", or "already discussed and rejected".
I think the great feature of Lua is, that it is very easily extensible. It is very easy to add the Lua interpreter to a program of your own (e.g. one written in C, C++ or Obj-C) and with just a few lines of code, you can give Lua access to any system resource you can think of. E.g. Lua offers no function to do xxx. Write one and make it available to Lua. But it's also possible the other way round. Write your own Lua extension in a language of your choice (one that is compilable), compile it into a native library, load the library within Lua and you can use the function.
That said, Lua might not be the best choice as a standalone crossplatform language. But Lua is a great language to add scripting support to your application in a crossplatform manner (if your app is crossplatform, the better!). I think Lua will have a future and I think you can expect that this language will constantly gain popularity in the long run.
Warhammer Online, and World of Warcraft use it for their addon language I believe.
I think it's hot! I'm just no good at it!
Well, greetings from 2022.
It is already a general purpose language. Today you can even serve pages using OpenResty, extend games, read databases or create scripts as shellscript replacements.
There are a plenty of libraries "modules" for Lua, many ways to achieve what you are wanting and Lua 5.4 is even faster.
The "extendable and extensive" nature of Lua, accostumed people to think it should only be used as plugin or extension. In Linux, by example, you can shebang a file with lua-any, make it executable and run like any system script. Or you can make a folder app like Python or virtualenv using Lupe. Lua 5.3 also gained impressive performance improvements.
Also there are many good tools like IUP to create native windows in Lua for Mac, BSD, Linux and Windows and side environments like Terra that lets you use Lua with its counterpart Terra and write compiled programs. Lua now, is more than a extension language, it has its own universe.