Giles Bowkett wrote:

> ... 
> I think there's definitely a difference between corporations and
> business in general. I think widespread adoption by **corporations**
> is viewed suspiciously. I could be wrong tho.
> 

In the USA, it is nigh impossible to run a business without also being 
incorporated.  Even non-businesses, such as Ruby Central, are Inc.'ed.

But I think I get your point.

When I had a Real Job, I was glad when I was able to move from VB to 
Java, largely because I got to work with some very smart people writing 
good, inventive Java.  I learned a lot and it was fun.

But a few years later, management changed, and what might be called the 
Corporate Mindset took over.  So, I was still doing Java, but the 
particulars were dictated: J2EE +iPlanet.  Ick.   We became framework 
scripters.

No more using the language in whatever means was most appropriate.  They 
  wanted plug-and-play code by and for plug-and-play coders.  Instead of 
looking to see how to best build a business, people were looking mostly 
to preserve what they had, and would pick the safest choices to cover 
their asses.  (I.e., "Best practices: Adequate choices that probably 
won't get you fired.")

So, it may be good if companies adopt Ruby, but if they end up 
dictating, for example, that *every* Web app *must* use Rails, even if 
their developers can offer better alternatives, then the fun can fade.


-- 

James Britt

http://web2.0validator.com    - We're the Dot in Web 2.0
http://refreshingcities.org   - Design, technology, usability
http://yourelevatorpitch.com  - Finding Business Focus
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys