From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2006-05-04T00:40:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Sharp knives and glue

------=_Part_8794_1312205.1146670849285
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

In all candor, I wouldn't want to hand an undisciplined or poor-quality
programmer <i>any</i> kind of a tool, unless he works for one of my
competitors, in which case I want him to have the most powerful and
dangerous tools available! ;-) I suspect what you meant to say is: should w=
e
hand such tools to <i>inexperienced</i> programmers? My answer to that woul=
d
be, absolutely positively. I don't believe in training wheels. I do believe
in having the management discipline to invest in younger people while
keeping them off critical project paths until they prove themselves.

On 5/3/06, kate rhodes <masukomi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just want to point out that a secondary issue has been introduced to this
> conversation that makes it much harder to answer the initial question.
> People started talking about large scale development projects and
> enterprise
> this and that which are valid issues to address when comparing ruby to
> other
> languages BUT, the question at hand is should undiciplined, or just poor
> quality, programmers be handed a language as dynamic and flexible as Ruby
> or
> something that limits their ability/options to do stupid things, like Jav=
a
> or Ada? Ada, as Ed pointed out, probably is a better choice than Java by
> this criteria and it is alive and well in the defence industry.
>
> -kate
>
>

------=_Part_8794_1312205.1146670849285--