Ruby vs. Java vs. TypeScript: my experience on building a Cowork DOCX plugin
The article discusses the author's experience building a Cowork DOCX plugin using Ruby, Java, and TypeScript. Java was found to be the most effective for handling zip files and XML, while TypeScript was chosen for its potential future compatibility with MCPB. The author also highlights challenges faced during development and the decision to switch to Bun for creating a single-executable binary.
- ▪The Cowork DOCX plugin was implemented in Ruby, Java, and TypeScript.
- ▪Java was preferred for its seamless support of zip files and XML.
- ▪TypeScript was selected for its potential compatibility with MCPB in the future.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
By tanin — May 19, 2026 Ruby vs. Java vs. TypeScript: my experience on building a Cowork DOCX plugin We've built a Claude Cowork DOCX plugin in Ruby, Java, and TypeScript. Java is the winner for supporting zip files and XML in its runtime with no issues. However, TypeScript is chosen due to the possibility of MCPB support. Summary We've built a Claude Cowork DOCX plugin in Ruby, Java, and TypeScript.Java is the winner for supporting zip files and XML in its runtime with no issues. However, TypeScript is chosen due to the possibility of future MCPB support without embedding the Node runtime.Codex's plugin mechanism is lagging behind Claude's.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at tanin.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from tanin
