From: "Volkmann, Mark" Date: 2003-02-19T06:20:28+09:00 Subject: Re: Interesting quote ... This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2D793.561A4804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is a reply to the person that pointed out the flip-side mentioned in the article. Unfortunately I already deleted it. Here's the flip-side he quoted. "There's myopia comping from the other direction too. Scripters like to tout order-of-magnitude productivity gains but, as Ward points out, "they don't know enough about how complexity leaks into business systems, so even if your language is 4x more productive, it only buys you another year before disaster strikes." What's the basis for assuming that people who like scripting languages don't know about the complexities of business systems? For many of us, scripting is something we like to do when we can, but we spend significant amounts of time coding in Java and other languages at the request of our employers. We are VERY familiar with things like database access, transactions, caching and all the other concepts that play into what Martin Fowler terms "Enterprise Applications". > -----Original Message----- > From: JamesBritt [mailto:james@jamesbritt.com] > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:14 PM > To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org > Subject: Interesting quote ... > > > from Ward Cunningham, via Jon Udell [0]: > > > And here we run into a major disconnect. To the enterprise, scripted > solutions look like one-offs, not strategic systems designed to high > standards of quality and able to evolve along with the business. > What the enterprise folks don't get is that scripted systems can be > engineered to meet these requirements. So they lean toward C++ and > Java, and then rely on powerful integrated development environments, > like Eclipse and IntelliJ IDEA, to make fluid refactoring possible. > These tools can work very well. "They're complicated," observes > Ward, "and you have to learn how to work them -- but boy, when you > do, they make those languages start to feel like scripting languages." > > [0] http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/02/13/07stratdev_1.html > > > James Britt > > *********************************************************************************** WARNING: All e-mail sent to and from this address will be received or otherwise recorded by the A.G. Edwards corporate e-mail system and is subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to, someone other than the recipient. ************************************************************************************ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2D793.561A4804 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Interesting quote ...

This is a reply to the person that pointed out the flip-s= ide mentioned in the article.  Unfortunately I already deleted it.&nbs= p; Here's the flip-side he quoted.

"There's myopia comping from the other direction too= . Scripters like to tout order-of-magnitude productivity gains but, as Ward= points out, "they don't know enough about how complexity leaks into b= usiness systems, so even if your language is 4x more productive, it only bu= ys you another year before disaster strikes."

What's the basis for assuming that people who like script= ing languages don't know about the complexities of business systems?  = For many of us, scripting is something we like to do when we can, but we sp= end significant amounts of time coding in Java and other languages at the r= equest of our employers.  We are VERY familiar with things like databa= se access, transactions, caching and all the other concepts that play into = what Martin Fowler terms "Enterprise Applications".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JamesBritt [mailto:james@jamesbritt.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:14 PM
> To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Interesting quote ...
>
>
> from Ward Cunningham, via Jon Udell [0]:
>
>
> And here we run into a major disconnect. To the ent= erprise, scripted
> solutions look like one-offs, not strategic systems= designed to high
> standards of quality and able to evolve along with = the business.
> What the enterprise folks don't get is that scripte= d systems can be
> engineered to meet these requirements. So they lean= toward C++ and
> Java, and then rely on powerful integrated developm= ent environments,
> like Eclipse and IntelliJ IDEA, to make fluid refac= toring possible.
> These tools can work very well. "They're compl= icated," observes
> Ward, "and you have to learn how to work them = -- but boy, when you
> do, they make those languages start to feel like sc= ripting languages."
>
> [0] http://www.infoworld.com/article= /03/02/13/07stratdev_1.html
>
>
>  James Britt
>
>



***************************************************************************= ********
WARNING: All e-mail sent to and from this address will be received or
otherwise recorded by the A.G. Edwards corporate e-mail system and is
subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to,
someone other than the recipient.
***************************************************************************= *********
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2D793.561A4804--