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