Filed under: Enterprise, Software, Internet Tools, Developer
Yuma: New scripting tool for web developers
To web developers, scripting is the glue that connects web pages and back-end systems. For example, PHP is a very popular scripting environment that has been used to write web apps like WordPress and phpBB. For those of you who use PHP, you know that it is a dynamic, weakly-typed hypertext preprocessor. In other words, it's a scripting language that is embedded in the HTML code that makes up a web page.Inspiring Applications, Inc. hopes to catch the imagination of web developers with Yuma, their new strongly-typed, object-oriented scripting tool that is being released today. Rather than the confusing syntax of PHP, Yuma uses a simple REALBasic-like syntax. It is natively compiled to machine code on Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows for high speed.
Yuma Development Server for Mac OS X is available as a free download, complete with example code, a full developer reference, language definition files for BBEdit, TextMate and Text Wrangler, and more. When you're ready to deploy your Yuma web app, you can purchase and install Yuma Enterprise Server ($149). It's a command-line app and may be set up as a daemon.
To run either Yuma Development or Enterprise Server on Mac OS X, you need to be running OS X 10.3 or later on a G4, G5, or Intel-based Mac with at least 1 GB of RAM.
Thanks to Brad for the tip.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Eric said 8:47AM on 7-15-2008
The Lasso language from Lassosoft is my personal favorite. I prefer it's easy to learn language yet it is extremely powerful and was designed with security in mind.
Reply
Andrew Turner said 9:12AM on 7-15-2008
While PHP was originally developed to be a "Hypertext Preprocessor" it is more generically a server-side scripting language, and not strictly bound to doing page generation. A better comparison may be Cheetah or Erb.
There are several shortcomings with using a unique templating language like Yuma. First it doesn't support any time of abstraction or MVC architectures. Developers are putting database and business logic directly in their views.
As the Yuma forum points out, it will be difficult (and currently doesn't exist) to find hosting to support Yuma built sites. Developers will be required to host their own applications.
Lastly, because Yuma isn't open-source, developers are beholden to a single company for support, updates, and longevity. What happens if the company goes away? The sites and applications created in Yuma will not be maintainable, requiring complete rewrites of any sites.
Just some things to be aware of for developers considering picking up a proprietary development environment.
Reply
Ryan said 10:04AM on 7-15-2008
What would be the reasons to choose this over some other open/free framework like Pylons/TurboGears/Rails/CodeIgniter?
Not trying to troll, just seriously curious what points make someone decide to go with this.
Reply
Bill said 10:28AM on 7-15-2008
No, I thought the same thing when I read the article. It seems like a solution looking for a problem.
Fritz Laurel said 1:22PM on 7-15-2008
Compiled would be the only thing for me. That's the main reason I shun PHP, et al for ASP.NET.
drix said 10:07AM on 7-15-2008
HA HAHA! This is rediculous! Why pay 130 bucks for something PHP does for free? Plus is open source, highly secure, constantly updated and so easy to implement and learn.
Reply
Kit said 10:48AM on 7-15-2008
From the writeup: "Rather than the confusing syntax of PHP, Yuma uses a simple REALBasic-like syntax."
Excuse me? There isn't a language on the planet that doesn't require a person to get up to speed on its syntax.
Not impressed with the marketing-speak regurgitation here. Clearly this outfit is targeting PHP, but if I were to go anywhere from PHP, it'd be to python, not Yuma.
Reply
thezonie said 11:22AM on 7-15-2008
I agree ... How is the syntax of PHP any more confusing than any other modern language?
Jeff Ayling said 11:26AM on 7-15-2008
Hey, this is an incredible solution for me and thousands of RealBasic Developers out there.
Rather than working in an unfamiliar php/jsp language, I can leverage my existing REALbasic skills and build web applications using the same language I already use to build native GUI desktop applications for Mac, Windows, and Linux.
I've had a great experience with the product so far and have installed Yuma on my XServe. With my RealBasic skills I'm finding I can convert php pages (which took hours to code) into Yuma pages in minutes.
Congrats!
Reply
Buckingham said 11:41AM on 7-15-2008
This is unusual in terms of the nature of the product and its timing. As all the above posters pointed out, it's confusing to figure out to whom this product is for. It sounds like a company went out of coma after ten years and comes out with their "new" product.
Reply
camron said 11:44AM on 7-15-2008
Ugly syntax, no abstraction, no thanks.
I'll stick with python/django.
Reply
hutch said 12:03PM on 7-15-2008
wtf? 1gb of ram as a requirement?? and who creates NEW basic languages these days?
Reply
CaptSaltyJack said 12:58PM on 7-15-2008
How is php confusing?!
No offense to anyone (except for the creators of Yuma, maybe), but I hope Yuma dies a quick death, sooner than later. $150 to deploy?? Give me a break.
Reply
Jeff said 1:02PM on 7-15-2008
It's like they took everything good about modern web software and did the opposite.
Strong typing sucks almost all the time, which is why .Net has issues.
I'll complain about the syntax, but every language has some syntax that sucks somehow, so this isn't as big a mark. But still, why go backwards syntactically?
Compiled? Are you @#$#ing kidding me? What a waste of programmer time and resources. Modern dynamic languages are going to have way better performance because they have craploads of resources going into optimizing them. Who's going to optimize the Yuma compiler to that level? NO ONE.
You want me to pay money for these "features"? This is insane. You can't build a closed-source platform and then not give it away.
Step 1: Do everything backwards.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!
Reply
Paul Smaoluk said 1:05PM on 7-15-2008
Charging for the server licence is like signing your own death certificate
Reply
Caitlin said 1:08PM on 7-15-2008
Wow this post backfired. Heh.
I don't find PHP's syntax to be all that confusing, either. Maybe that's because I learned how to program on Java.
Reply
ant said 3:48PM on 7-15-2008
Hhahaha *BASIC syntax over php? Youve got to be kidding me right? As for a strongly typed languaged there are definite pros and cons. Personally in my experience I havent come across an issue with a dynamic typing. Secondly If you do need strong typing why not use Python or Ruby???? Both have EXCELLENT frameworks out for them. Both are OpenSource. Just like php.
As for compiling vs. not compiling I dont see the real benefit in terms of web development that cant be gained by a simple opcode caching module. These exist for php, and i would think they exist for Ruby and Python as well.
Lastly, *IF* I were to actually fork out $$$ for a server license I would most definitely choose ColdFusion over anything else.
As others have said - "Solution looking for a problem".
Reply
kim said 8:32PM on 7-15-2008
It's fairly clear from the response that this isn't going to be for everyone:)
As someone who's created a number of RealBasic applications for my company it's a godsend for me. Our web stuff has been coded in PHP and, whilst we've been able to get things done, it's never been a particularly enjoyable or productive road for us.
Being able to leverage existing RB classes and modules means we're getting far more sophisticated things done in a fraction of the time.
Of course, this doesn't mean this can't be done with PHP, Python, Ruby or anything else mentioned, simply that it gives people with solid Basic experience a chance to re-purpose their existing skills. There's a lot of RB and VB users out there who would never have even seen PHP let alone want to learn it.
As far as cost, it's a pittance compared to what we pay for Word, InDesign et al. Be nice to have for free but we'll save way more than its cost in increased productivity. In the scheme of things, $150 would only be a lot to people who expect everything for free.
Reply
Kim said 12:50AM on 9-13-2008
It would have been great to have access to a library of code examples from day one. Would facilitate a quicker implementation and adaption by programmers currently using other languages.
Yuma should have created a sample web project, complete with include files, headers, footers, navigation, file upload and database connectivity.
Maybe I'll start writing a migration guide for classic ASP. This will help developers who are looking into switching from PC to Mac and needs a solid development environment without having to learn a new language.
Reply