I love new technology. Since I always wanted to try out Sinatra, my Unobtrusive JavaScript presentation on our retreat seemed like a perfect fit. Wouldn’t it be nice to not use Keynote for this? Why not just present it in the browser?
Some hours later, I came up with a little presentation app. Everybody can connect to the Sinatra instance via the browser and the presenter can choose which chart they are looking at. They don’t have to reload the page, it updates itself. Pretty slick.
If you’d like to try it out, get it either at Beanstalk or download it here. If you’re interested in the presentation I gave, you can just view the slides.
How to use it
1. Install Sinatra via Rubygems
gem install sinatra
2. Run the application
ruby keynote.rb
That’s it.
Now everyone can connect to it via the browser on port 4567 (default). To access the chart selector, just browse to “http://localhost:4567/god_mode”. You can actually change this behavior, just open the keynote.rb file and adjust it. Looks pretty clean, does it?
I can’t wait to use Sinatra for production purposes. Sometimes, you don’t need all that stuff Rails provides. Less means more.
9 Comments
Hey Gilbert!
Great presentation. One question: why do you hate prototype+scriptaculous so much?
Andrew Okonetchnikov — November 4, 2008, 12:07 pm
Me too! I’m waiting for Heroku to support Sinatra ;)
Rafael Souza — November 4, 2008, 12:13 pm
Andrew: Oh there is stuff like filesize, inconsistent API, poor documentation etc. Relying on two frameworks is really not a good idea. MooTools and jQuery are much better options. They don’t just want to create a good JS framework, they also introduce new cool and clever stuff which make your life with JS a lot easier.
Gilbert Guttmann — November 4, 2008, 12:41 pm
Unobtrusive Javascripting is definitely the way to go.
For the record, there’s a great add-on for Prototype that makes it dead simple.
http://www.danwebb.net/lowpro
Geoffrey Grosenbach — November 4, 2008, 1:13 pm
Also, I like the shared presentation idea!
I’d love to design a system where the viewers would be prompted to type into a text box and could interact with the content of the slides.
For example, in one of John Resig’s Javascript tutorials you can run the code interactively:
http://ejohn.org/apps/learn/
Geoffrey Grosenbach — November 4, 2008, 1:19 pm
Gilbert, I think it’s a matter of taste. Scriptaculous is a kind of addition to the Prototype, like all of these plugins Mootools and jQuery has.
Regarding filesize: consider compression of Prototype and you’ll come almost to mootools size. The difference in several KB isn’t that valuable these days also.
Andrew Okonetchnikov — November 5, 2008, 5:33 am
Andrew, agree. It’s always about personal preferences. But if you have a look at jQuery and MooTools, you will agree that both have “something” that Prototype is missing.
Gilbert — November 5, 2008, 7:12 am
Heh, I’m working closely with mootools right now and I really miss lots of features prototype has. Of course you can always extend it to fit your needs, but why the fuck should I think about such things like Element.show and hide methods?
My opinion is that frameworks are here to help developers build apps faster with less effort. Each of these frameworks has some unique features and might fit different needs. For some neat animations only I’d go with Mootools, but for complex apps with lots of client-side logic I’d stick with Prototype for sure.
http://blog.reindel.com/2007/10/30/how-to-choose-a-javascript-framework/
Andrew Okonetchnikov — November 5, 2008, 7:37 am
Andrew, I always prefer my own approach for show/hide: Element.addClass(‘hide’), Element.removeClass(‘hide’). I don’t like the ’style=”display: none”‘ stuff everyone is doing.
Let’s don’t start a war on this ;) – but I like this comparison:
http://mootools.net/slickspeed/
Gilbert Gutmann — November 5, 2008, 8:58 am
Write a comment