From: Jim Freeze <jim@...>
Date: 2005-06-04T06:26:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Building a business case for Ruby

* James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> [2005-06-04 06:00:13 +0900]:

James, you seem to be right on.

> >Ruby offer nothing significant not found in these XXXXX Standard
> >languages, and an addition language just adds variation."
> >
> Boo, perhaps, but try turning this around.  Suppose Ruby, not Python, 
> were already on The List, and someone comes to you to make a case for 
> adding Python.
> 
> What do want to hear to convince you?  What are you tossing back when 
> told of Zope, or Twister, or the extensive Python XML tools, or the 
> amount of documentation, or how it's a great beginners' language, or 
> whatever Pythonistas think makes a compelling case?

Yes. Very good point!

> >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?

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner!

-- 
Jim Freeze
Theory and practice are the same, in theory. -- Ryan Davis