On Saturday, 15 May 2004 at 19:24:44 +0900, James Britt wrote:
> Jim Freeze wrote:
> >On Saturday, 15 May 2004 at 10:38:51 +0900, Ryan Paul wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:58:43 +0900, Sascha Ebach wrote:
> >>
> >>If ruby is adapted to fit the needs of
> >>big business, it will lose it's flexibility, and it will be much less fun
> >>to use!
> >
> >
> >It depends on how you and businesses look at the situation. In my
> >opinion, Ruby is ideal for business and will give any company
> >that adopts it a competitive edge. (To be competitive, you need
> >to use a tool that is better than your competitor's.)
> 
> I believe this is the crux of any Ruby advocacy effort.  I'm not 
> interested in specing out corporate needs and then seeing how to change 
> Ruby.  I want to have something other than my own anecdotal experience 
> and gut feeling to convince others that Ruby, as is, can meet their needs.

James, I know you are familar with CTBSW. Write the code. They will
come. All other arguments are either contrived or, as you say,
anectdotal.

-- 
Jim Freeze
New Year's Eve is the time of year when a man most feels his age, and
his wife most often reminds him to act it.
		-- Webster's Unafraid Dictionary