A different javascript Syntax.

[Largo]

This is an explanation of the work that i have in my fork. I'm planning to use this in my RubyKaigi Lightning Talk. I'm currently wondering if I should put this into a separate gem or if we upstream it into the ruby.wasm js package.

I have Ruby.wasm-quickstart and Videoplayer that use this syntax.

Main difference:

JS.global.document instead of JS.global[:document]

button.style.backgroundColor = "#4CAF50"
instead of
button[:style][:backgroundColor] = "#4CAF50"

I also added type conversions for this to work as well as it does.

# Update slider position as the video plays
@video_player.addEventListener("timeupdate") do
  @seek_slider.value = @video_player.currentTime unless @seek_slider === @document.activeElement
  @current_time_display.innerText = format_time(@video_player.currentTime)
end

# Handle playback rate adjustments from speed buttons
speed_buttons = @document.querySelectorAll(".speedButton")
speed_buttons.to_a.each do |button|
  button.addEventListener("click") do
    speed_buttons.to_a.each { |btn| btn.style.backgroundColor = "" }
    # Highlight the clicked button
    button.style.backgroundColor = "#4CAF50"

    speed = button.getAttribute("data-speed")
    @video_player.playbackRate = speed.to_f
    @video_player.play
  end
end

Any thoughts? :)

Main blockers

• Splitting up my method_missing is a challenge :)
• I'm struggling with writing tests. (Edit: tests will work after downgrading nodejs to below 20)

[kateinoigakukun]

My main concern about the syntax is that JS.global.document() seems like a method call but it's property access, and there is no way to distinguish JS.global.document and JS.global.document() with the current method_missing.
My design principle here is not making core things easier but keeping them simpler in the early days. So I'd like to suggest playing it as a gem.
I'll have a complete documentation for RubyGems usage on ruby.wasm soon. Stay tuned.

[Largo]

Thank you for your answer. I believe in Ruby properties are philosophically methods, but I understand your concern of what happens if there are a property and a method with the same name. So far I haven't found a real world problem during using this syntax. Maybe we can talk about it during RubyKaigi?

I'll turn it into a gem and show it during my short 5 minute talk :)
My only concern if I make a gem, is how I make sure it chooses the compatible version of the JS gem. I have not done research there yet however.

[kateinoigakukun]

Yes, we should talk about this at the Kaigi :)

My only concern if I make a gem, is how I make sure it chooses the compatible version of the JS gem. I have not done research there yet however.

The js library is now a gem, so you can just specify compatible js gem version in your gemspec.