Forum: Ruby Article of interest (?): Why Ruby on Rails Succeeded

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
estherschindler (Guest)
on 2007-07-26 19:40
(Received via mailing list)
Whatever you think of Ruby on Rails technically -- even if you prefer
another language or development framework -- you do have to admit that
Rails has gained huge acceptance in a short period of time. In this
CIO article, Hal F., author of The Ruby Way, explains what the
programming community did right, and how others can learn from it.

http://www.cio.com/article/125851
Phlip (Guest)
on 2007-07-26 22:46
(Received via mailing list)
estherschindler wrote:

> Whatever you think of Ruby on Rails technically -- even if you prefer
> another language or development framework -- you do have to admit that
> Rails has gained huge acceptance in a short period of time. In this
> CIO article, Hal F., author of The Ruby Way, explains what the
> programming community did right, and how others can learn from it.
>
> http://www.cio.com/article/125851

Nice article.

One important point the author dances around is that many products owe
their
market share to relentless marketing, not their quality. This implies
that
a successful Free Software must be twice as good as a commercial one to
be
thought half as good in the trade press.

Fortunately this isn't very difficult...
Hal F. (Guest)
on 2007-07-26 22:51
(Received via mailing list)
estherschindler wrote:
> Whatever you think of Ruby on Rails technically -- even if you prefer
> another language or development framework -- you do have to admit that
> Rails has gained huge acceptance in a short period of time. In this
> CIO article, Hal F., author of The Ruby Way, explains what the
> programming community did right, and how others can learn from it.
>
> http://www.cio.com/article/125851

Oops, I didn't realize Esther had already posted this. Sorry
for double announcement.


Hal
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-07-26 23:13
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/26/07, Hal F. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> for double announcement.
Indeed you could have been more careful, now I have to read it
*twice*!!!
Phlip (Guest)
on 2007-07-26 23:21
(Received via mailing list)
Robert D. wrote:

>> Oops, I didn't realize Esther had already posted this. Sorry
>> for double announcement.

> Indeed you could have been more careful, now I have to read it *twice*!!!

Not very DRY, guys! (-;
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-07-26 23:30
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/26/07, Phlip <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Robert D. wrote:
>
> >> Oops, I didn't realize Esther had already posted this. Sorry
> >> for double announcement.
>
> > Indeed you could have been more careful, now I have to read it *twice*!!!
>
> Not very DRY, guys! (-;
Read it twice anyway, I just did, really :)
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-07-27 00:11
(Received via mailing list)
Hi --

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Phlip wrote:

> Robert D. wrote:
>
>>> Oops, I didn't realize Esther had already posted this. Sorry
>>> for double announcement.
>
>> Indeed you could have been more careful, now I have to read it *twice*!!!
>
> Not very DRY, guys! (-;

Hal didn't repeat himself -- he repeated someone else :-)


David
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2007-07-27 04:17
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/26/07, removed_email_address@domain.invalid 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Not very DRY, guys! (-;
>
> Hal didn't repeat himself -- he repeated someone else :-)

DROP.  Don't Repeat Other People
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-07-27 13:38
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/27/07, Gregory B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > >> Indeed you could have been more careful, now I have to read it *twice*!!!
> > >
> > > Not very DRY, guys! (-;
> >
> > Hal didn't repeat himself -- he repeated someone else :-)
>
> DROP.  Don't Repeat Other People
DRAIN
Don't Repeat Anything In No case
unknown (Guest)
on 2007-07-27 14:12
(Received via mailing list)
Hi --

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Robert D. wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> Indeed you could have been more careful, now I have to read it *twice*!!!
>>>>
>>>> Not very DRY, guys! (-;
>>>
>>> Hal didn't repeat himself -- he repeated someone else :-)
>>
>> DROP.  Don't Repeat Other People
> DRAIN
> Don't Repeat Anything In No case

DRIP DRY

Don't repeat it, period....


David
Robert D. (Guest)
on 2007-07-27 14:29
(Received via mailing list)
On 7/27/07, removed_email_address@domain.invalid 
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> Robert D. wrote:
> >> DROP.  Don't Repeat Other People
> > DRAIN
> > Don't Repeat Anything In No case
>
> DRIP DRY
>
> Don't repeat it, period....
Hmm is this a subtle indication that maybe we are wasting a little bit
too much bandwith ;), I guess you are right.
RDDRRD
;) and out
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.