From: "W. Kent Starr" <wyzzrd@...>
Date: 2002-12-16T09:30:07+09:00
Subject: Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby

On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 18:37, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby"
>     on 02/12/12, "Shannon Fang" <xrfang@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> |>it's the MATZ'S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
> |>it's his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
> |>corporate use
> |Is it really Matz's opinion, and the direction of Ruby?
> 
> I don't think so.  Ruby was his toy at the beginning, 

Ditto c, c++, lisp, linux, perl, etc.
Also, ditto the steam engine, the Apple computer, the telephone, the
airplane, the phonograph, television ad infinitum, by way of
perspective.

"God created the world as man's playground; it is the job of science to
provide the toys."  

> but this fact
> does not mean it remains being a toy forever.  

Ditto (see above examples).

> Speaking of "features
> needed for corporate use", we have to define what they are.  

Extensibility, scalability, cost efficiency, value propagation,
maintainability, security, productivity, accoutability, logevity.

Not in any particular order of priority (which indeed varies from
company to company and from project to project within a given company.)

So, where does Ruby fit into the picture here? How does it compare to
other mainstream languages (which in the US are c/c++, java, perl and to
a lesser degree python and smalltalk.

And how does Ruby, or ~any~ of the above stack up with regard to the
"next big thing", which is likely to be some kind of distributed/grid
computing environment, possibly XML-based?

For that matter, where do "corporations", as presently structured, fit
into and increasingly open-sourced global information environment?

Some of the possible answers are technical oriented, others more
socialogical in nature, with the "line" between the two, vis a vis the
"big picture" increasingly indistinct.

Comments?

Regards,
W. Kent Starr