From: "Ara.T.Howard" Date: 2005-07-07T07:20:46+09:00 Subject: Re: Marketing a system that relies on a component that is alpha version 0.1 On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Jenjhiz wrote: > No matter how good the programming language is, no matter how easy it > is to develop database centric application with it, if the application > relies critically on a software component that is alpha version 0.1 the > last 7 years or so, and rarely upgraded, I will be laughed off if I > suggest to use such an application for corporate computing. But such is > the case with Ruby and Ruby on Rails relying on Oracle OCI8. Oracle > OCI8 has been alpha 0.1 since the first time I saw it (7 years ago?), > rarely upgraded (though the last one was May 2005). The perception is > that the developer of the driver perceives the driver to be *that much* > a long way to being production version 1.0, and has no time or desire > to get it to production robustness, and its development progress is > slower than the speed of a snail travelling across a path covered with > molasses. > > If OCI8 is ready for production use now, don't be too modest, call it > version 1.0. If not, work to convey that there is a path to it getting > there soon. The battle for tool makers appears to have settled down; > lines have been drawn among Ruby, PHP, Python. The next battle is over > the minds and hearts of business database programmers. There's a lot of > VB, Delphi, PowerBuilder, and Oracle Developer developers to be won > over. You can't even be a contender in this battle if you don't have > database drivers perceived as active players and that perform with > industrial strength. > > gk my best work never gets to 1.0. that's because it's simple and stable for the initial relase and i use versioning (libtool scheme) that has real meaning - not marketing hype. i've noticed that people that write really good software, like d.j. bernstein don't release that many versions; for instance cdb is still at 0.75. that's because it's really good. in any case, unless you understand the semantics of a particular software package it's kind of silly to comment on it's robustness. for instance, using libtool versioning 6.0.4 is probably much better and more stable than 7.2.0 why? because 6 is backward compatible with 5,4,3 and 2. this is a good indicator that the code has been very stable and not had it's interface changed - only added to. 7.2.0, on the other hand wouldn't be backward compatable at all and this probably means it's full of new bugs. by the same logic 0.25.0 would be a fantastic release. this would mean the package had been released 25 times without breaking the interface or adding to it. surely the initial design must have been good! in any case commentary on version numbers without including their meaning isn't a good context to talk about stability or robustness. not that the oci8 lib is either (i don't know) but i thought i'd point out that not all verion numbers are created equally. about battling for supremacy: why would rails/ruby developers want all the vb, delphi, powerBuilder, and oracle developers to jump ship and be 'converted'? if i were competing in the web development arena i'd be quite happy to let them keep working in their antiquated environments - it'd be that much more work for me ;-) cheers. -a -- =============================================================================== | email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | phone :: 303.497.6469 | My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness. | --Tenzin Gyatso ===============================================================================