From: gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: 2004-01-17T05:30:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Fighting Ruby's bad fame

il Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:17:17 +0900, Lothar Scholz
<mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> ha scritto::


>gr> I did not heard someone talking about this in a long time, what about
>gr> you?
>
>Hmmm, it is not the amount but the quality of documentation. 

hey found one! ;)

BTW i think you're right. Good documentation is really important. But
I really think documentation is getting better.


>The problem is not that there are not well known applications. It is
>that there is no enterprise application and not even one larger ruby
>application. 
>I searched sometime to find one but without luck. All of
>the apps could be written in one or two month. So they are no prove that
>Ruby is productive for programming in the large and programming in
>teams.

well, I think there are some, just  too little. 
I think many people wrote larger ruby apps, maybe not gigantic, but
large. 
It seem there is even a company that has a pair of anterprise-level
product written in ruby. (look at the RealWorldRuby page in the
section dedicated to Web applications)


>I have no problems finding large applications in PHP, Python,
>Perl, Smalltalk or even in TCL.

I know that this happens. I wonder why. I can't believe php is much
'eneterprise-friendly' that ruby. And I don't think ruby offers more
rope to hang you than SmallTalk :)


>And yes there are real technical problems why i wouldn't use ruby for
>larger applications. The common programming style of for example
>adding functions to base classes like Array are a reason why i would
>not recommend the language for large application programming.

Wonderful how you met my expcetations :) 
It seem there are lot of people that thinks like you. 
But you can even do this in SmallTalk, IIRC, and ST has been around
for many years with really big apps, what's wrong with ruby ?

thanks for your answer