From: Byung-Hee HWANG <bh@...>
Date: 2007-09-28T19:31:17+09:00
Subject: Re: question on bottleneck of ruby

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 19:17 +0900, Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
> On 9/27/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >  Which is why they teach data structures in computer science class. It's
> > all about fast search, I think. That's one of the big gripes I have with
> > "lazy" interpretation. If you don't do stuff until you have to do it, it
> > only pays off if you end up *never* having to do it. :)
[...snip...]
> I've found in my businesses that such fleeting opportunities come up all the
> time. If you're a person who believes in proper software engineering, and
> well-controlled processes, you're probably climbing the walls and getting
> ready to throw things at me right now! But this is why I was talking about a
> value-tradeoff. If I'm right, then there are a lot of opportunities to
> create capturable business value that traditional methodologies (including
> fast-prototype-followed-by-extensive-rewrite) simply can't touch.
> 
> For these cases, Ruby is uniquely valuable.
It seems like you are angry. I can feel that you like Ruby very much.

[...snip...]