From: Francis Cianfrocca Date: 2006-08-18T10:14:09+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby is exploding onto the scene as Java did at the end Charles, I'm going to let you have the last word but before I do, I'd just like to ask if you've ever stopped to think what is the common thread with technologies that have major-vendor support? In general, they are heavy, difficult, full of committee-driven standards, and very costly. In other words, no one could love them but a vendor. Now think about the common thread with technologies that started off developed by open communities, like Linux (and Ruby). Well, not all of them are full of sweetness, light, and intelligent defacto standards. But they all do seem to generate this big question, "what's the business model?" The few companies that have come up with a coherent answer to this question (RedHat, JBoss) are, I think, exceptions that prove the rule. And your point (expressed repeatedly and forcefully) that Ruby is a more productive development technology, is precisely why no major technology vendor is interested. Ruby doesn't create an opportunity to lock customers into heavyweight commitments in order to force-feed them terrifically expensive support and services. So all your protestations notwithstanding, I'm not holding my breath waiting for a major technology vendor to endorse Ruby. Its heavyweight backing will have to come some other way. I think Google can be helpful for the same reason they back Python: it's one of the things they use internally and they want the community to stay healthy. But if Python is the model, then Google's support will be tepid at best. How they build their technology is not where their business edge comes from, as much as we technologists want to believe it is. Microsoft's support will be a double-edged sword. Microsoft's goal is to enforce their platform lock-in, so they want to make sure they get a chance to co-opt any hot technology before someone else does. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.