From: Paul Vudmaska Date: 2004-05-07T02:50:02+09:00 Subject: Re: [OT]Is Ruby Top 1 of Programming Languages that are Loved? Sean Russell wrote: >ptkwt@aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) wrote in message news:... > > >>Yeah, mine's quickly coming to an end... I must say I've been lucky, I >> >> > >Bummer. Too bad we all can't band together and start a Ruby Solutions >company :-) > > > >>I think this has been brought up before by others, but I'd be willing to >>work for less $ (don't spread this around too much :) to work on a Ruby >>project than I would be willing to work for doing the >> >> > >Heck, yeah. What clients don't understand yet is that they'd be >getting more for their money. > > > Luckily, my clients could give a darn what I use. They do see productivity. They like that. >Hm. Of all the things I said Ruby "needs", what would be the most >useful is improved code validation tools, like a type checker. People >tend to not trust scripting languages for large projects; personally, >I blame Javascript and VB for giving all other scripting languages a >bad name. > > > Ouch. I did a lot of server side stuff w/javscript. We had about 10 developers sharing a largish code library, including a templating system, that simply made our job simpler and better. We never had any problems(bugs we could not kill) and were quite productive - especially related to other teams that insisted on using vb components(compiled). >>who would make that trade too. So maybe instead of offshoring, corporations >>should figure out what languages people would code in for less$ if given >>the opportunity (also, consider the productivity gain they would get by >>using Ruby) ;-) >> >> > >Unfortunately, it is often a case of someone who thinks they know >enough about architecture issues making the decision that the project >needs to be done in one language or another. In a lot of cases, the >decisision is actually based on good requirements. As much as I love >Ruby, I wouldn't think of it first if I was trying to architect a >GUI-heavy client. Additionally, Ruby isn't "well known", and >obscurity can do a lot of damage to a language when it is being >considered for a project. Where's the support if something goes >wrong? Finally, there are the performance issues. Often, it is >reasonable to choose a single language with decent performance rather >than choose to use two languages, one for glue, and one for >performance-critical code. > > > >>So, are we ruined by Ruby? ;-) >> >> > >I know *I'm* spoiled. > > > >>>must so many of us wear the Cruel Shoes of Java? Ruby needs a killer >>>app, like an interpreter in Mozilla so that web designers can script >>>with Ruby instead of Javascript. >>> >>> Cruel Shoes of Java,lol,that is good. >>That would be very nice. Maybe it's a matter of 'converting' the right >>people in the Mozilla project. >> >> > >Maybe. I mean, it wouldn't be widespread unless other browsers >started supporting it (IE, in particular), but it would be nice. I >think if somebody submitted a patch to Mozilla that enabled this >support, it might be kindly received. Perhaps not. > > Plenty of folks out there mandate a browser - usually IE. For solutions that i could ensure the browser to by moz, using a ruby interp would be grrreat! :paul