[ruby-talk:01420] Re: Scripting versus programming

From: Andrew Hunt <[e-mail]>

> Conrad writes:
>
>     >I recommend that we (and Ruby documentation) describe Ruby first and
>     >foremost as "one of the world's most powerful programming languages",
and
>     >subsequently mention that is also enormously useful for
scripting--if, when,
>     >and where appropriate. This may (or probably should) sound trite to
>     >technically astute people, many business/IT decisions at tens of
thousands
>     >of shops world-wide are unfortunately made on the basis of
superficial
>     >impressions.
>
> I agree whole-heartedly!
>
> I think it is misleading to call Ruby a scripting language, and
> the unelightened might mistake it for another VB or Perl, or
> even a replacement for JavaScript.

OK. So, can the "Who's Who" page (http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/whos.html)
have "Scripters" changed to 'Programmers"? After all, there are some really
high-powered programmers on that list, and I cringe to see them described as
"scripters".

> Towards that end, (while I'm on the soapbox), I think we need much
> more in the way of enterprise connectivity -- better database
> interfaces, CORBA, EJB, etc.

Absolutely.

> If Ruby could be used effectively to implement middle-tier
> business logic I think we'd get quite a bit of attention!

My guess is that the attention would be in the hundreds of millions of bits
per year range.

> What do ya'll think? (I live in North Carolina, US, now and
> one of the quirks of regional English is the contraction
> "ya'll" for "you all")

(After being mostly a Southern Arizona and Northern California person until
recently moving back to Austin, I thought ya'all was a Texan thang.)

Well, I think you're definitely 100% on target. (Although I hasten to add
that there are other good targets for people with other interests.) But the
crux of the matter has to do with resources, implementation, and execution
of the fairly gigantic undertaking you have proposed (even allowing that the
Perl and Java communities done much important pioneering work that will save
time).

One question that I have been asking on and off for several years is where
else could you apply the Cygnus model so as to bring substantial money and
full-time talent to bear on projects that advance open software technology.
This may be one answer.

Another possibility is to become the ActiveState of Ruby, and subsequently
steer yourself in the direction of enterprise connectivity as you help
people branch out from Perl and Java.

Incidentally, it is partly out of consideration of future rank and file
business programmers and their managers and their technology evaluation
people and even the computer business trade press that leads me to stress
the great importance of removing linguistic jargon/obscurities from Ruby and
Ruby documentation (e.g. "destructive methods" --> "change methods",
"yield" --> "callBlock", "scripting" --> "programming").

Rapid growth of Ruby in the business arena can help indirectly underwrite
developments that will synergistically help science and engineering users of
Ruby. For instance, with the Cygnus model, in addition to handling
middle-tier business logic contracts, you could also get world class C++
programmers, Java JVM experts, and experts in code optimization to rewrite,
maintain, and extend Ruby (to follow Python designations), while leaving
Matz free to concentrate on the design of new features.

Conrad