From: ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2004-01-17T13:40:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Fighting Ruby's bad fame

In article <uh3g00hgtmc9f30hsm2jn17hvt1e4csf1t@4ax.com>,
gabriele renzi  <surrender_it@remove.yahoo.it> wrote:
>Hi gurus and nubys,
>Yesterday I had an epiphany[1] that I want to share. 
>WARNING: these is lazy thinking
>
>
>It seem that, from time to time issues about ruby grow up as Urban
>Legends and spread everywhere as misconceptions.
>In the past the ruby community faced some of this problems..
>
<snip>
>
>
>
>[misconception 3]
>The newer misconception that I notice is that ruby is just good as a
>"prototype language". I heard this many times, and it popped up in
>this list too, sometimes. 
>Wait: ruby *is* a great prototype language, but not just that. 
>
>Many people see language features like open classes, non-constants
>constants, lack of static typing etc.. as "enterprise issues". 
>"you can't write serious apps in ruby, but it's good to prototype.."
>
>How do you fight this?
>
>Well, you need apps. We don't have applications. If you look at RAA or
>RubyForge you may see lots of frameworks, libraries, but little apps.
>
>Could you name 5 applications written in ruby and known to
>non-rubyists? Could you do the same with other languages?
>
>I know there are many people that use ruby. 
>But I wonder: when I talk about ruby and  someone asks me to name a
>largely used ruby app, why I can't think of anything?
>

There probably are lots of Ruby apps out there, but most of them are used 
quietly inside companies.  I recall Dave Thomas talk at OSCON last year 
about a large application he wrote for a non-profit a while back.  Sounded 
like it was pretty substantial - 20K+ lines as I recall.

I know of some Ruby apps that are being written that will never make it 
outside  corporate walls.  I also know of a potential Ruby app (still 
in the deciding phases) that will (if approved) make it outside, but 
nobody who uses it will realize it's a Ruby app... that's all I can say ;-)

Phil