From: Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@...>
Date: 2005-06-04T06:11:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Building a business case for Ruby

On 6/3/05, James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
> Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> > We've got mountains of unmaintainable perl stuff here, and I haven't
> > really seen much in Python.  I'm in charge of developing some new
> > software and would like to use Ruby.  Actually, the software is
> > finished (very quickly) and I just need to get Ruby on the allowed
> > list.  :(
> 
> Isn't this, then, the best argument?  Use Ruby and have code finished
> yesterday, or use P* and either never really finish, or never really start?

That would be fine, in my group.  And it would be one example when
trying to push this as a company standard, but I doubt it would be
sufficient.

> >
> > I don't need arguments about Perl vs Python vs Ruby.  I would like to
> > see a discussion of:
> >
> > 1)  Why one additional language isn't a bad thing
> 
> But it is, all things being equal.  It just adds complexity and risk,
> unless the new language has a compelling use-case.
> 
> I would argue that, if indeed there is little to no Python, that Ruby
> should be added *in place of* Python.  (This works especially well if
> there are no Python developers to argue back.)

There aren't many Python coders in my group, but I think there are
more through out the company.


> You'll need to present a money case; if adding Ruby means making more
> money, or saving more money, or both, then you're (probably) golden.

Yes.  I'm trying to do that now!  :-)