Titanium uses it's own methods and translates that code into Obj-C (you can actually see the * incredibly insane* trans-source when you build the app) -- RubyMotion is a direct interface with Cocoa and Obj-C. If you know Obj-C you can immediately start experimenting with RubyMotion --comfortably-- and if you know Ruby and can "read" Obj-C you can immediately pick up the iOS cookbook and get started, like the authors did. Think of it as a dialect, similar to CoffeeScript, where all the same rules apply, but things are just... better. Having zero Obj-C experience and, I admit, no desire to go into the realms of byte-sized memory management, I avoided it for a long time, but after just a few weeks with RM I feel like I have a very strong grasp on both Ruby and Obj-C, and can read and write both interchangeably, including interfacing with Storyboards and Interface Builder. Two languages for the price of one, IMO, and that was well worth the $150 dollars I paid, aside from any products that I may release with the toolchain.

But yeah, in short: there's no comparison between Titanium and RM.

Not a fan of Ruby (which pretty much nails RM's coffin for me), so really can't comment. You appear a fan of Ruby, so I take what you say with a grain of salt.

> there's no comparison between Titanium and RM.

Well, there is. As much, I guess, as there is between PhoneGap and RM. I really just saw RM and Titanium having more in common then what PhoneGap had to offer, and saw the comparison as a bit odd. PhoneGap's goals are different then RM or Titanium. That's all I really meant.

Well, I'm now a fan of Ruby; I learned it via RubyMotion :)

The comparison was one of personal experience, we had the app written in PhoneGap prior to the release of RubyMotion, then rewrote it. The post just documents our impressions from both approaches.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that your article was odd. Just, it seems odd to have that comparison made. Sort of like comparing a programming language to a framework if you will.