Tim Ferrell wrote: > > > Ilias Lazaridis wrote: > >> Thomas E Enebo wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Ilias Lazaridis defenestrated me: >>> >>>> Thomas E Enebo wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Ilias Lazaridis defenestrated me: >>>>> >>>>>> I simply need to produce software. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just Download & start? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What Java bundles exist where you just download and start? >>>>> Especially that does a fraction of what you are talking >>>>> about. Many frameworks and tools exist in Java, but they all >>>>> require research and I cannot think of a single-stop >>>>> solution. Enterprise highly scalable stuff exists for java, >>>>> but that stuff is never really simple software production. >>>>> It also always seems to need plenty of plumbing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One reason for leaving JAVA. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Fair enough. As a follow up question...Have you found any >>> technology suite that has fullfilled your requirements list? >> >> >> >> not yet. >> >> I'm evaluating some python stuff, but the reaction of the community >> on a simple questionaire has distracted me very mouch. >> >> [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler >> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f5cd74aa26617f17 >> >> >> >> - >> >> If i find e.g. 70% fo my requirements fulfilled within ruby, I >> would possibly start to implement the remaining 30%. >> >> But possibly I should split my requirements down into smaller >> chunks, and ask step by step. > > What might also help ... you will be in a better position to ask good [...] - (process suggestions) Sorry, cannot alter my process. > That being said, I would look at this differently if I were in your > position. Rather than searching for a language that "does it all" (or > 70%, as you said) I would look for a language that is capable enough > to meet the requirements, but moreover, something that truly makes > life as a developer more productive and less stressful, you know? > That is the kind of language I would want to base a framework on - > even if I had to develop it myself. I understand what you mean. But I have some timing constraints, thus depending on some existing coverage. > Of course, that really explains why I am a Ruby developer in the > first place... I don't like having to wrestle with a language to make > it behave :-) > > Cheers ... and good luck on your search. Thank you very much. > Tim .. -- http://lazaridis.com