------art_16865_17573154.1146814390348
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/5/06, Kirk Haines <khaines / enigo.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 04 May 2006 5:37 pm, James Britt wrote:
>
> > Right.  And in those cases it may make sense to use a different
> > language.  Various degrees of security often come with corresponding
> > development costs.  For me, those day-to-day costs aren't justified for
> > what I write; the pros and cons of Ruby work out quite well.    But,
> > just as one might prefer C to Ruby when speed is the main concern, a
> > different language might be called for to satisfy other needs.
> >
> > Better to change languages than to change Ruby.
>
> Just as a data point, while what I produce are not large team, high
> dollar,
> multiyear projects (though I would love the opportunity to take on such a
> task), I make the vast majority of my income writing software, in Ruby,
> for
> customers in the financial, construction, and environmental sectors of
> business.  I've been doing this for four years.  Some of the software is
> web
> related, and some is more related to issues of data handling, storage,
> transfer, and transformation.



How big is your team? Do you use any XP methodologies, or would you give
us an idea of what methodologies you do use? How big are the programs
you have written?

Les

------art_16865_17573154.1146814390348--