From: Rove Monteux <rove.monteux@...>
Date: 2004-01-31T02:19:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Learning Curve Development Time Question

Not sure if its inside the topic at all, nor if it will help, posting 
the testimony anyway.

All of our internal software, most automation tasks, content management, 
in others, used to be coded in Java, few (very few) on Perl.

Platform used to be Win32 and solaris on x86, more recently we have 
moved 90% of it to OpenBSD on x86.

Id honestly say, the first reason to move away from Java was the lack of 
support on OpenBSD. Then came the Perl phase.

Honestly saying, we are programming in 1/2 days with Ruby, what we used 
to take 1/2 weeks in Java.

Specially the simplicity, and the builtin methods for web, ftp, email 
and regexp are the obvious reasons for that.

Not sepcialist in Ruby yet, altho the learning curve for doing the same 
software has been considerably low, as we did java and perl before.

One thing we notice is slightly harder to track programming errors, it 
took a while to get used to it. But overally, its been well worth it, if 
we were able to deploy the same code to the Java VM, that would seal it.

Still portable tho, and runs pretty much in everything.

Again not sure if any usefull on the case, but there it is.

Good luck !

Rove Monteux

Zach Dennis wrote:

>I am curious what others have found with a learning and development curve
>with areas of code that are quite similar.
>
>In the design of a small scale project there will be 2 main systems. Inside
>of these systems will be a few more smaller subsystems. The systems will
>communicate to eachother via network socket interfaces. This is so we can
>have the systems to different machines. I was thinking for expandability
>purposes that perhaps we made the subsystems work the same way. So that if
>for any reason we found one area getting used a ton that we could move it to
>it's own machine with little effort. Since the 2 main systems would need
>socket interfaces to communicate with eachother I am curious if coding the
>subsystems would provide unneccessary development time. Or if since the same
>logic could be applied that was already coded and tested in the 2 main
>systems that the development time may not be unneccessary.
>
>In any of your experiences is this the case? Would the development time for
>the subsystems go way down since the main 2 systems have been tested and is
>good to go? Or since they are different "systems" would the
>learning/development curve still be just as steep?
>
>Thanks for any replies!
>
>Zach
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Rove Monteux
Systems Administrator

rove.monteux@fluid-rock.com