I have to say, I agree that part of what makes Ruby special is that itdoesn't need an IDE to be efficient (*cough* *cough*, Java!). Ipersonally use JEdit for my Ruby work (well, learning it at least),and while I'd love something with more autocomplete abilities andbetter syntax checking, that's it. Btw, that's neat about NOAA usingRuby!
Jacob
On 9/7/05, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:> On Sep 7, 2005, at 6:56 PM, graham wrote:> > > I agree. Although Ruby has potential, it still appears to be a> > language for small systems/utilities. Partly because of the tools> > support, partly because of performance, partly because it is> > "new" (ish).> > I've been watching this list for over a year now and I don't remotely> believe the above.  I think you might want to look into some of the> things Rubyists are doings.  I expect to to be surprised.> > > Ruby seems to be at the stage of Java 0.9.. i.e. 1 set of command> > line tools and loads of "learning applets" to play with.> > Again this, does not jive with what I see here every single day.  Did> you read Ara's post earlier tonight about the image analysis of> hurricane Katrina being done with Ruby, by NOAA?> > > Its going to be a few years and something like "RBuilder" (c.f.> > JBuilder) to get people using it to solve real problems...> > I believe it's my job to manage complexity, as the programmer, not> the IDE's job.  Tools are nice, but that has little to do with what I> can and can't manage.> > James Edward Gray II> > >