I have never seen or heard of Ruby in a corporate context. The single exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier who was using it with Watir for testing a Java application. If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make for using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not thinking of Rails here, which is a rather specialized).
on 2008-12-30 08:45
on 2008-12-30 09:25
Mike Stephens wrote: > I have never seen or heard of Ruby in a corporate context. The single > exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier who was using > it with Watir for testing a Java application. > > If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make > for using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not > thinking of Rails here, which is a rather specialized). Why Java? Why Python? Why Perl? Why PHP? Why _fill in the blank_? There is no why. Ruby has been around a while. Some people like the syntax of the language. Some people don't. Ruby has been getting more popular compared to some languages that have been around longer, or that have seen they busiest days. I doubt any of them are going anywhere, and at some point, maybe soon or maybe not soon, some other language will be the more hyped one, and people will start using it more. It might be a new one, or one with a new service or framework, or just something else to make it more exciting (even if it's been around a while). People might see it as more interesting, more aligned with their ideal of how a language should be designed, or think it's the next big thing. If you don't like ruby, that's cool. There are a lot of good, effective languages. Maybe you'll never see a request or demand for ruby development in the companies you work for, or when you look for a job? Maybe you'll end up looking for a job and find that a bunch of companies you're considering all want ruby developers? Maybe they'll say "or another language" or they might have their entire project dependant upon you knowing it really well. The same can be true of any language, it might depend on the job and company, or the specific field, though. There's no reason to learn ruby if you don't want to. Plenty of people still use other languages and will continue to. You might not ever miss an opportunity, but you also can't try and excel at all of the most used or hyped languages (regardless if they deserve the hype of not), because you'll never get really good at all of them and new stuff comes out all of the time. I first started looking into ruby probably back in '95 or '96, but never got into it then. I dabbled a little, but didn't get into it. I liked Perl too much (I still like it better than Ruby, Python or PHP), but when the ruby on rails framework buzz hit, a lot of people jumped on it quickly (at least it seemed). I don't recall anyone I knew that programmed knowing what ruby was in around 2001 or 2002, but in 2003-ish, it started to take off. Don't let the popularity of a language make you think it's more of less worthy. It might be worth investigating if it gets popular, so you're not at a disadvantage though. I worked for a company that had a project in Perl. Worked fine, Perl is a great language. They wanted it all changed to heavily OO Perl code. Fine, so that is nearly done. Then they said they wanted it in mod_perl with Mason. Fine. Then it was a project in PHP. Okay. Then they dropped that and wanted it done in Python. I'm not great at Python coding, so that wasn't fun, but that was short lived and the company owner got all hot and bothered about Ruby on Rails when it was really first hitting sites like slashdot. My head sunk. Instead of getting the job done, the owner was more interested in new, interesting things (to him), and out of all of the coders on the team that were experts in C, C++, Python, Perl, PHP, we all had to stop and learn ruby. I quit that week. I mean, I get paid, I'll do whatever the boss wants, but when things are ignored and projects never get done and you have a company owner telling his entire client base that this massive project will be done in 1 to 2 weeks time, expecting everyone to learn a new language and have the code be secure, stable and efficient, from scratch, that's too much stress. We literally got the news one day in a meeting and were told we'd get bonuses if we stayed up through the night, in some vain hope we could roll out a major update in a new language (to us), using a new web framework, and actually have a working, productive project. I slept that night while everyone spent the next 2 months straight trying to get a handle on that one single portion of the project that would have taken a matter of hours in a language everyone knew already. Obviously this wasn't the fault of ruby, but it really made me dislike the whole idea of it. The point is, sometimes you have to ask yourself "why"? Sometimes it's to add another language to your resume, sometimes it's to actually work in it, see what the benefits are, and sometimes just to be prepared to be able to handle what's thrown at you. Some people enjoy it a lot and even despise languages I personally like better. Maybe they had a boss with their heads in the clouds that went the way of the latest buzz, too? I think the initial exposure to certain technologies are what primarily affect a person's view. However, at some point, you have to (hopefully it'll be quick) just take it for what it is and try and look at it without bias or comparing it to the languages you already know. That is, needless to say, few people have a good reason to learn another language (to the point where they are truly good at it), if they already know other languages where they can do anything they want, and do it well (being efficient, secure and stable). So, don't let anyone or any buzz or web sites that are for or against it sway you. For whatever reason, you're here, so you've heard of it. If you feel it might be something in demand in your field, maybe look into it. Maybe it'll be a language you'll enjoy, or maybe it'll just never agree with you? Personally, I like it, but I like a lot of languages. Ruby isn't my favorite, though. Same with PHP -- it's not my #1 choice, but I like it enough to use it. Knowing them (and others) comes in pretty handy regarding web related programming topics and projects. Be it a client asking for help because their script isn't working, or maybe a project you got because you at least showed the company that you have an open mind and are willing to work with the choices they've made? I've found that a little goes a long way with things like that. I've told people point blank that "I can code this in PHP or Ruby", but that I "strongly prefer Perl", and thus can develop the project faster, and feel more confident about my code. That's not to say I suck at PHP or ruby, but that I've been coding in Perl since maybe 1992-ish, and I'm probably always going to know it better and feel more comfortable with it over something like PHP, Ruby, Python or whatever else. I find that, so far, except that one company being the exception, they ultimately don't care as long as the results are quality and you don't create some alien spaghetti code, and make good, relevant comments. Perhaps one day, something else might be my #1 language... maybe it'll be ruby? Probably not, but I don't think it's going anywhere, so enjoy using it, if you have the time and desire (or motivation).
on 2008-12-30 09:46
On 30.12.2008 08:44, Mike Stephens wrote: > I have never seen or heard of Ruby in a corporate context. The single > exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier who was using it > with Watir for testing a Java application. > > If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make for > using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not > thinking of Rails here, which is a rather specialized). If I type "why ruby" in my favorite search engine's form the first hit is http://www.ruby-doc.org/whyruby My personal reasons are * lots of things can be done on few lines * it has a clean syntax * it is pure OO Kind regards robert
on 2008-12-30 12:15
on 2008-12-30 12:36
on 2008-12-30 15:13
Il giorno 30/dic/08, alle ore 12:35, Robert Dober ha scritto: > one that breaks this vicious circle. I disagree, I know a bit of how "pointy haired bosses" think (they tried to turn me into something like that several times, unfortunately for them there's a small Zed Shaw in me and they can't destroy my "your shit sucks and now you die" attitude :p) and I think the biggest problem is availability and cost of resources. At the end they are something very close to end-users, they care about the final result, and of course they're not enough educated to make decisions that actually make sense on the tech side. What they see is that they can choose between a bunch of developers with medium/high salaries and a million of developers with medium/low salaries. What they normally think is: let's take 20 junior developers and hire a senior that acts_as_babysitter. That's the reason under the outsourcing madness too, developers are exchangeable. I think that the problem here is not companies or management, but pretty much developers. If the only reason you choose a technology is the market: a) In my opinion your skills are poor. In general, if "joy" isn't part of your choice you're a poor developer b) They put themselves in the position of being exchangeable, they all have the same skillset, the same mindset, the same level of disinterest about their job. Corporations especially are particularly good in this, they behave with every project as it already failed, that's why they always try to keep development costs as low as possible. The reason is simple, they often fail. > stalled the project for two months (yes that is 5184000s, you got that > right) in which they discussed a migration from Java to C#(1). I have > not stayed along to experience the outcome of this.... one has only > one stomach you know :( Yes, we all have this kind of stories :) Mine is from my pre-Ruby days, where I used to be a Python developer. One of the biggest banks in Italy hired me to develop an internal project in Python, they gave me 3 months (without asking me a damn). After less than 2 month I was over, wrote the test suite (I remember doing a no-no after the other, testing libraries, frameworks, just because I was bored). The project, after 3 years, is still in production. They switched to PHP of course, they weren't able to find enough Python developers, they didn't think at me whining because I was bored, finishing my project a lot before, releasing it with an uptime of years and without a single problem in all this time. They wanted numbers. This is idiotic I know. At least, after a few days of doing nothing, I rewrote the whole project in RubyOnRails (and finished it !!!), and actually felt in love :) > -- > Il computer non è una macchina intelligente che aiuta le persone > stupide, anzi, è una macchina stupida che funziona solo nelle mani > delle persone intelligenti. > Computers are not smart to help stupid people, rather they are stupid > and will work only if taken care of by smart people. > > Umberto Eco I see that Abulafia is well known outside Italy as well :) I love "Il pendolo di Focault" as well, one of my favourites. ngw
on 2008-12-30 15:25
Mike Stephens wrote: > I have never seen or heard of Ruby in a corporate context. The single > exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier who was using it > with Watir for testing a Java application. > > If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make for > using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not > thinking of Rails here, which is a rather specialized). It is very handy for making conversion and import scripts. I've been using it for converting between geographical coordinate systems, for processing translations in a spreadsheet, and for generating svg and html from algos and xml. Just to name some small stuff... It is a nimble little language! Casimir Pohjanraito
on 2008-12-30 16:17
C. Pohjanraito wrote: > > > It is a nimble little language! > One of the reasons I favour Ruby is it isn't Java. Anything mainstream gets coated in layers of bureaucracy. The question is not so much whether people like it versus something else, it's how it might find a niche in a corporate context. Rails has given Ruby a sort of USP so almost always when you see a vacancy it's for Ruby with Rails. My objection to Rails is you're back to having to learn more than one set of things before you can get going. I'm thinking along these lines - very simple to install; zero licence fees; extensive integration features; fully OO - a fast agile cousin of Java As a matter of interest - is it really all that nimble, or is it that nimble people use it?
on 2008-12-30 16:40
Dave Bass wrote: > Mike Stephens wrote: >> If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make for >> using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? > > Not a very good case: Java rules. If all the other companies just ... jumped off a cliff, would you?
on 2008-12-30 16:42
Mike Stephens wrote: > I have never seen or heard of Ruby in a corporate context. That's because difficult and bloated systems like VB or Java were invented to sell to managers in corporate contexts. That makes languages with merit hard to squeeze in. > The single > exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier who was using it > with Watir for testing a Java application. That's because Watir is a killer app - one whose value has exceeded the shock of Ruby. Like Rails, people learn Ruby to use Watir. > If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make for > using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not > thinking of Rails here, which is a rather specialized). If "services" is a web api, why should they care what language you wrote an application in? Either way, a company might think they need to see what language you use as a "due diligence" thing, to see if you are really a member of the Java/C# club. If so, you can win by using Ruby. You typically accomplish twice the features in half the time and 1/10th the code, compared to Java. You can easily overwhelm your competition...
on 2008-12-30 16:45
Mike Stephens wrote: > As a matter of interest - is it really all that nimble, or is it that > nimble people use it? Ruby code is absurdly easy to write, test, and refactor. Java uses static typing, and Perl (for example) uses helplessly cluttered notation and ridiculous defaults. That's why Ruby statements can be cleaner and more expressive.
on 2008-12-30 17:29
Languages affect the way you think about things and the way you are able to solve problems. When you have a language that gives you the tools to express your problem space with ease and simplicity you're in good shape. If you don't then you have unwanted complexity. Here's a simple example. If you're only familiar with Java and XML then Ant seems like a logical build system. But if you look at Rake, which leverages Ruby, you realize how much simpler a problem is when you have language constructs capable of describing the problem better. Just to give you an idea of how good Ruby is at teaching different ways of thinking compared to even some of the best languages just take a look at SCons. SCons is written in Python (a very fine language). And SCons is based on an award winning design for a build system. But in spite of taking advantage of the elegance of Python SCons isn't able to map the problem domain to the Python language the way Rake is able to do with Ruby. The Python looks like someone trying to write something in Python where the Ruby almost looks like it was specifically created to make a build system even though it wasn't. That teaches me something useful that I can use to simplify many things. Cheers, 11 00
on 2008-12-30 18:34
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Phlip <email@example.com> wrote: >> exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier who was using it >> with Watir for testing a Java application. > > That's because Watir is a killer app - one whose value has exceeded the > shock of Ruby. Like Rails, people learn Ruby to use Watir. Alright. I have a small gripe about that concept. I think I'm part of a small minority when I say that Rails learners don't know crap about Ruby. But, I have to qualify that statement with the fact I use Ruby for different things and started learning it long before Rails. I have yet to really get into Watir. Todd
on 2008-12-30 19:46
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Nicholas Wieland <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Il giorno 30/dic/08, alle ore 12:35, Robert Dober ha scritto: <snip> > I disagree, Do you? I felt that you said pretty much the same. Ok I take your variations into consideration and I am quite happy that you had better experiences than your humble servant. But what I really wanted to express is the need for numbers, guidelines, etc. etc. which somehow obscures needs and realities. PHP of all languages brrrr <snip> >> Il computer non è una macchina intelligente che aiuta le persone >> stupide, anzi, è una macchina stupida che funziona solo nelle mani >> delle persone intelligenti. >> Computers are not smart to help stupid people, rather they are stupid >> and will work only if taken care of by smart people. >> >> Umberto Eco > > I see that Abulafia is well known outside Italy as well :) > I love "Il pendolo di Focault" as well, one of my favourites. Actually all I could read was "Il Nome della Rosa" everything else, well mi dispiaceva ;). Ciao Roberto
on 2008-12-30 20:31
Il giorno 30/dic/08, alle ore 19:44, Robert Dober ha scritto: >> I see that Abulafia is well known outside Italy as well :) >> I love "Il pendolo di Focault" as well, one of my favourites. > Actually all I could read was "Il Nome della Rosa" everything else, > well mi dispiaceva ;). Ah, too bad, that's a citation from "Il pendolo di Focault", probably his masterpiece.There's a part where the main character cracks an account (on a word processor that one of the characters named Abulafia, like the jewish philosopher of the mistic qabbalah) using social engineering. Try it if you have a chance. ngw p.s. sorry for the OT
on 2008-12-31 03:20
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:36:03 -0800, Phlip wrote: >> If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make >> for using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not >> thinking of Rails here, which is a rather specialized). > > If "services" is a web api, why should they care what language you wrote > an application in? Put yourself in the shoes of the company paying for the software. There are many reasons why you should care about the language it is written in. Does the language make it easy or difficult to write correct code? How easy is it to maintain later? If the original developer gets hit by a bus, can you get somebody to replace him easily? What if he turns out to be a real prima donna, or gets bored halfway through the project and leaves? Is there is a shortage of developers in this language? Are you going to be reliant on a single lone-cowboy, or even a single company? What is the learning curve to train somebody new in the language? Is there a steady stream of new developers learning this language so you can maintain it years from now? If (when) the project goes over-budget and late, can you prove that you used industry standard practices? If you use some weird language nobody has heard of, and things go bad, will you be blamed for choosing a toy or experimental language not up to the job? Can you say, "anyone else would have made the same choice"? In five years time, or ten, will the chosen language still be supported and updated? Will there be security patches, or will it be abandoned? Generally, corporations are risk-averse. Their decisions are made more on the basis of "What if this goes wrong?" rather than "What's the best that can happen?". If you're risk-adverse, you're expecting that the project will end up late, over-budget or missing features, and let's face it, IT projects are notorious for doing all three. The IT world is full of people who will promise you the world, and then fail to deliver. Imagine you're not a developer yourself, or your only development experience was a bit of VB ten years ago, and maybe a few Excel macros. Why should you believe these brash young kids with their Ruby or Haskell or Python? Talk is cheap, and it's not their money being spent. That's the *rational* reasons. Of course there are plenty of irrational reasons too. But if you can't make the case for Ruby against the rational concerns, you certainly won't be able to get past the irrational ones.
on 2008-12-31 12:42
These concerns are exactly the ones I was asked at the first two companies where I wrote ruby. They are valid concerns and whilst they didn't prevent me from using ruby they certainly influenced my career sucess. Managing these forces requires skill at persuasion and marketing, a lical track record, and good luck. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 30, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au
on 2008-12-31 13:51
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > If (when) the project goes over-budget and late, can you prove that you > used industry standard practices? That is: "nobody got fired for buying IBM" It seems that everyone is risk-averse, but nobody thinks about opportunity costs. (e.g. if we pass up the opportunity to deliver a workable solution in one month instead of six, how much money does that lose us?) Similar considerations apply to XP ideas too (e.g. "do the simplest thing which can possibly work", "you ain't gonna need it" etc). If your business won't do XP because it thinks that only the waterfall model is valid, then equally it's not going to consider using a different language.
on 2008-12-31 14:17
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Steven D'Aprano <email@example.com> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:36:03 -0800, Phlip wrote: Stephen, all I snipped away is very sensible stuff, however > Can you say, "anyone else would > have made the same choice"? Will you not get fired if you say such a stupid thing? Oh I lost that chess game and yet I mirrored every move of my opponent. I believe it has been shown that the most dangerous and most devastator projects are those which have not taken any risks and all decisions have been taken in a conventional way. In other words, where is the added value of a person that takes the choice anyone else would have made? <More good stuff snipped away> There is one other thing. I believe that starting a project in Ruby and having to fall back to a more conventional language is still time well spent in a sound design process. It will not work the other way round though. Choosing Java will become a final decision ( nowadays of course JRuby and friends might offer an escape route after all ;) very quickly while choosing Ruby while leave you much more freedom of choice later on. Cheers Robert
on 2009-01-07 20:55
Mike Stephens wrote: > I have never seen or heard of Ruby in a corporate context. The single > exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier who was using it > with Watir for testing a Java application. The shame they could not test Java with Java is overwhelming. Obese platforms like Java are invented to sell to corporate managers. > If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make for > using Ruby rather than Java, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not > thinking of Rails here, which is a rather specialized). The main selling point is: Getting twice the features written, in half the time, with 1/10th the lines of code, and with no bugs (under Test Driven Development). Yes, Java supports TDD, but Ruby is a dynamic language. That makes everything easier, including the testing. In Java, you must declare the class hierarchy for every interface, and you must declare which types are allowed in what variables. This overhead is remarkably similar to the (Taylorist) principle that to do anything in a big company you must first fill out your paperwork, in triplicate, get it approved by your managers' managers' managers, bury it in peat for a decade, etc. Java is an example of "overcontrol", yet that is exactly the selling point that Sun makes to your managers.
on 2009-01-08 16:29
Thanks Phlip. If I add all the responses together I think we get Ruby can be positioned for agile rapid applications, prototyping etc. Java is typically more long-winded but suitable for big expensive structured mainstream projects requiring all the bureacratic strategic architectures and policies.
on 2009-01-09 05:35
On Dec 30 2008, 2:30 pm, Nicholas Wieland <nicholas.wiel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Umberto Eco > social engineering. > Try it if you have a chance. > > ngw > > p.s. sorry for the OT > > --http://www.nofeed.org How did abulafia end up in the Ruby thread ? I read all kinds of kabbalah books myself for many years, but the last few years I have been pretty heavily influenced by Parmahansa Yogananda ..
on 2009-01-14 19:31
Of course ten years ago Mike could easily have been asking: On Dec 30, 1998, at 2:44 AM, Mike Stephens wrote: > I have never seen or heard of Java in a corporate context. The single > exception (where I first came across it) was a supplier using a Java > applet > to animate text on his world wide web page. > > If you supply services to corporates, what sort of case can you make > for > using Java rather than C++, which is in use everywhere? (I'm not > thinking of applets here, which is a rat The point being that the same patterns of behavior will recur. So soon enough BigWig A will be playing gold with BigWig B and will say, "You know we've got some great cost savings with our push to Agile, especially the whole Ruby on Rails things, what about you? "Us, we're looking at at it, not sure what results yet." Next Morning "Smith, What are doing with Ruby on Rails?" "er um, dont know" "Well I don't want to miss the boat on this thing, make sure we're taking it seriously, lets raise it at the next development managers meeting ..." I can recall how hard it was to get people to take Java seriously. I can also remember hearing "C++ is very pretty but it will never replace Fortran" And also, "You're trying to do that in GW-Basic. Are you crazy? Everyone knows that you can only do FFTs in Assembler. It will never be fast enough on an interpreter!"
on 2009-01-14 19:58
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Peter Booth wrote: > The point being that the same patterns of behavior will recur. > So soon enough BigWig A will be playing gold with BigWig B > and will say, I guess you HAVE to be a BigWig to play "gold" ;-) -Rob Rob Biedenharn http://agileconsultingllc.com Rob@AgileConsultingLLC.com
on 2009-01-14 21:06
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Mike Stephens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Thanks Phlip. > > If I add all the responses together I think we get Ruby can be > positioned for agile rapid applications, prototyping etc. Java is > typically more long-winded but suitable for big expensive structured > mainstream projects requiring all the bureacratic strategic > architectures and policies. Why would Ruby misfit large structured projects (whatever mainstream is, probably that part of the water racing fastest towards the falls) as long TDD/BDD is applicable? Cheers Robert
on 2009-01-14 21:30
I use Ruby daily at my place of employ. The company I work for is a multi-billion dollar outfit. I'm not sure if I can name the name though. The caveat to this is that my team is a very small component of this company. That's changing quickly though. James
on 2009-01-14 22:16
I didn't copy thread material, because my thought is not directed at any one conversation, but I thought it would be appropriate to say something in this thread. Is it plausible people are using Agile development because modern day consumer-type software has a half-life of about, umm, 3 hours? After that, it has to be mended and/or replaced. In fact, the whole paradigm in Ruby seems to be based on this premise. I love the language, and will never stop using it, but Agile development sounds very much like snake oil. 2c. Todd
on 2009-01-14 22:29
Hi everyone. I'm new to Ruby and have a question that I hope is simple. I wanted to compare some strings for similarity, and found this ruby gem called "english" (http://english.rubyforge.org/) which has a method called "similarity" that gives me back a similarity score when used. I wanted to know how that score is being calculated - and I looked through the docs and couldn't find it. I'm wondering if there's a way to easily "see" the code for a particular method from a gem - can i somehow use irb to show me the code for "similarity" to see how it is coming up with that score? Thanks, and sorry if this is a silly newbie question.
on 2009-01-14 22:43
> > Thanks, and sorry if this is a silly newbie question. > > Type gem unpack english It will unpack the gem into cwd and you can search the code. -- "Configure complete, now type 'make' and PRAY." (configure script of zsnes - www.zsnes.com)
on 2009-01-15 04:03
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Dan <email@example.com> wrote: > > Thanks, and sorry if this is a silly newbie question. > http://gemedit.rubyforge.org/
on 2009-01-15 07:12
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 06:15:15AM +0900, Todd Benson wrote: > development sounds very much like snake oil. Actually, my take is that some people realized that there are some beneficial development practices that we should be using -- but haven't really been using in any of the major development methodologies. These people decided this was the Promised Land of development, and put together a series of specific methodologies (most famous probably being X-treme Programming), then they all noticed there are systemic similarities to these different formal methodologies they all invented. Next thing you know, they're being marketed under the umbrella term "Agile". Eventually, I think people will come to the realization that there are some good things to be learned from this Agile stuff, but the specifics of requiring that everybody pair up, or tack 3x5 cards to the wall, or whatever, are less necessary. At that point, of course, some new people will notice the dire necessity of a new set of development principles, and the next run of the Next Big Methodology craze will happen. Each of these waves will surely teach us some new and important things about software development as a process -- and each of them will, for a short time, seem to be a Silver Bullet to a lot of people, before cooler heads prevail and we start to see the difference between the specific Methodology and the valuabe, generalized development principles. . . . but I may just be full of it. Maybe Agile Methodologies are really where it's at. Maybe it's more tied to the current generation of programming languages than anything else, and as long as we're using Ruby we should just use an Agile Methodology. I'm certainly not the world's foremost expert. Regardless, I don't think that calling "Agile" a "snake oil" is really accurate. While I'm no Grandmaster of Uber-Hackery, I'm pretty sure I can recognize a few good principles of development now and then, and there are at least a couple of them woven into what it means to be "Agile", at least according to the Agile Manifesto.
on 2009-01-15 17:35
Robert Dober wrote: > Why would Ruby misfit large structured projects? I didn't mean to imply Java is stodgy and Ruby is fluid. It was just that currently Java and C# are the corporate OO standards, so people will always want to know why you're not using one of those. You thus have to use some spin; create some clear blue water. Rails is certainly one way of getting around the Architecture Standards Manual but I guess they'll soon be a Java version if there isn't one already.
on 2009-01-16 10:23
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Mike Stephens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > Sorry Mike I must be on a different planet:( Do we agree that Ruby is fit for large projects? I on my side agree completely with what you say here, I probably misunderstood something earlier on. Cheers Robert
on 2009-01-16 11:20
Robert Dober wrote: > Do we agree that Ruby is fit for large projects? Someone famous - I suspect Abraham Lincoln - once said "If I had an hour to chop down a tree, I would spend 30 minutes sharpening my ax." Or similar numbers. Some pointy-haired bosses out there don't understand that metaphor. They think that the more strokes needed to chop down the tree, the more "progress" we made. That's why stodgy languages that lead to huge line counts are very easy to market to them.
on 2009-01-16 11:47
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Phlip <email@example.com> wrote: > "progress" we made. > > That's why stodgy languages that lead to huge line counts are very easy to > market to them. Sure, but in the end all that counts will be the trees chopped down, right :). Just to give myself some hope LOL. And sorry for that terrible metaphor we do not want to kill any trees down of course !!! R.