On 1/27/06, Dave Thomas <Dave / pragprog.com> wrote:
>
> No, it isn't. If each of them were to innovate by trying new and
> different things, then the industry as a whole would expand in many
> different directions. If we all just copy each other, then the amount
> of innovation is reduced. It's a question of opportunity cost.
>
> My post came from a frustration that there doesn't seem to be this
> kind of vitality.
>
> It's the same kind of frustration I feel when I see folks try to
> implement a Rails look-alike in other languages. It isn't that Rails
> needs to be the only player. It's that these copies miss the point:
> Rails works because it is integrated so well into Ruby. If you want
> to create frameworks for other languages, don't start by copying
> Rails. Instead, understand _why_ Rails works, then see what your
> target language has to offer and innovate with that.
>

I understand what you are saying regarding rails and I agree.
Rails is a tailored solution and what makes it so special is that
it is done with ruby. The concept of rails is not so significant in
itself because it could be implemented on other platforms,
but only when it is done on ruby does rails gain its special significance.

However I think you may be misapplying that when using it as
a metaphor for your innovations in the publishing business.

Unless of course what you are trying to say is that your innovations
in themselves are not so special, and that it is only because your company
itself is different that your innovations have gained any special significance.

Unfortunately that sounds a little fool hardy to me. That thinking leads
one to the rationality that "the others suck because they are not us, so
copying our innovations wont help them until they become just as we are".

I appreciate the sentiment that you folks are running a pretty tight ship
and I'm glad to hear it. It is something to be proud of, but I'm not so sure
that you are a ruby in the wild with some great rails on top.

But then again, maybe you are. Time will tell.

Cheers!

> I'm clearly not making my point effectively, for which I apologize.

No apology needed, I appreciated your reply.


--
Alex Combas
http://noodlejunkie.blogspot.com/