From: Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@...>
Date: 2009-09-06T20:11:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Rubyscript instead of javascript

On 6 Sep 2009, at 08:50, Damjan Rems wrote:
> Rome wasn't build in a day and it would be wrong to force millions  
> users
> like for example Twitter users to download some plugin to be able to
> continue visiting their beloved web site.
>
> I see Ruby and Rails perticualy as ideal tool for building company
> Intranets. Where the problem is that you usualy do not have enough
> employes and learning another language, which is different enough, is
> not productive.
>
> It was stated on a lot of places that Ruby and Rails is easy to learn.
> New employes tend to integrate into existing projects faster. Not to
> mention productivity.

JavaScript is ugly (to my eyes) but I wouldn't say it was any more  
difficult to learn than Ruby, and unless your team is comprised of  
developers who only know Ruby and hence would be facing the learning- 
my-second-language problem it's unlikely to have a major impact on  
overall productivity across the lifespan of any non-trivial project.

That said, if I could do browser-side coding in Ruby it would  
certainly make me much happier.

> I also see Ruby as a language which might finaly replace Basic as
> scripting language for all kind of complex applications. Imagine Ruby
> and gems embaded into OpenOffice.

It's unlikely to happen anytime soon for the simple reason that Ruby  
is still perceived as a niche language.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason