From: Brock Weaver <brockweaver@...>
Date: 2005-09-21T01:21:26+09:00
Subject: Re: you can't get in trouble with your boss for picking C#

------=_Part_7755_5246533.1127233283721
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Remember when Java was the new guy in town (ca. 1995)? "It's too slow, too=
=20
unstable, too ..." etc. That is the stage Ruby is at now.

Java has turned out to be a very successful language. Some may argue it is=
=20
not a "good" language as it makes certain compromises ("joe" =3D=3D "joe"=
=20
returns false -- now that seems weird, albeit correct since there is no=20
operator overloading). However, it is successful nonetheless. If you'll=20
notice the initial "downfalls" of Java early on are no longer issues --=20
JVM's have come a long way in the past few years both speed wise and=20
stability wise.

Ruby is nearing this tipping point now. The language is certainly powerful=
=20
enough -- I believe it mixes all the "good" portions of today's mainstream=
=20
languages with very little of the "bad". But performance is still a concern=
,=20
stability is still a concern, etc.

For any of you who have hosted busy ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> webservices,=
=20
you could say the same of .NET 1.1 -- stability is still an issue (who's=20
surprised by that? Anyone? :)), yet it is viewed as "enterprise ready".

Ruby will get to the point of stability which Java enjoys now. It may be=20
awhile until some of the kinks are worked out, but with the multitude of=20
developers beginning to at least try it out, there is nowhere to go but up.

You can argue the benefits of different languages until you're blue in the=
=20
face, but at the end of the day what matters is this: whatever it takes for=
=20
one to generate robust, concise, maintainable, straightforward code that=20
performs within an acceptable timeframe is what should be used. This means=
=20
different things to different people, and we usually get lost in the=20
details. But I believe whatever language someone views as fulfilling these=
=20
requirements is what s/he will use. I also believe Ruby can fill that niche=
=20
for several developers if they give it a fair run.

[steps off soapbox]


On 9/20/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>=20
> Florian Gro=DF wrote:
> > ToRA wrote:
> >
> > > For example, in Java/C# etc. you have to declare the type of any and
> > > every variable you create.
> >
> > This is changed in C# 3. You will be able to do var and AFAIK there is
> > even experiments with automatically specifying generic collections to a
> > specific type if you only ever put in objects of that type.
> >
> > I guess I'm increasingly more sounding like a C# fan boy, but I think i=
t
> > is going into an interesting direction...
>=20
> Yes, C# 3.0 and VB9 are going in a very interesting direction.
>=20
> There's something hilarious about the idea that VB could be a cool
> language - but WOW these are mainstream languages with a sizable
> userbase.
>=20
>=20
>=20


--=20
Brock Weaver
brockweaver@gmail.com

/* you are not expected to understand this */

------=_Part_7755_5246533.1127233283721--