Kirk Haines wrote:
> ... 
> This is something of a mixed bag.  Rails has been marketed very heavily, true.  
> The name is all over the place, and has been for quite a while, and many of 
> the claims, taken individually, are quite open to attack and criticism.  
> However, at the same time, hasn't that marketing also worked quite 
> successfully?

Successfully as compared to what? As with some other Rails hype, there 
is no real way to prove or disprove the assertion.

> 
> If RoR had not been hyped like this, would your Java shop know about it at 
> all?  Would there be an enthusiastic crowd developing for it, and a much 
> larger enthusiastic crowd buying books about it and using it?
> 
> Probably not.

Why not?  There are numerous simple, factual claims one can make about 
RoR that would have no problem getting anyone's attention.

The constant repetition in any available venue, the carpet bombing of /. 
threads, these get attention.  And, while potentially annoying, constant 
promotion while sticking to facts would not be so blatantly alienating.

> 
> So, although there is a _definite_ negative side to DHH's marketing style, and 
> it definitely turns some segment of the audience off, I can't sit here as an 
> observer and conclude that the style is anything but a success for him.

Not sure how turning people off from Ruby and the Ruby community is a 
success for anyone.  Maybe it's  a matter of numbers; lose some folks, 
but gain many more.  I have a hard time believing Ruby and Rails need 
churlish trash talk or extravagant, unverifiable claims to be 
successful, or that many in the Ruby community want to this as a means 
of promotion.  It's what (supposedly) sets this community apart.

James

-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com  - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com  - Playing with Better Toys