Hi,

In message "Re: Joel Spolsky on languages for web programming"
    on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:30:02 +0900, "Dido Sevilla" <dido.sevilla / gmail.com> writes:

|http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01.html

I am very proud he mentioned Ruby in one of his essays.  Actually, I
agree with his conclusion:

>that's not a safe choice for at least another year or six. that's not
>a safe choice for at least another year or six.

He is a businessman, not a geek, so he does not have to risk himself
using Ruby (and Rails).  It doesn't matter.  He will not pay me
anything even if he choose Ruby.

But we disagree in the middle.

> (1) it displays a stunning antipathy towards Unicode and
> (2) it's known to be slow, so if you become The Next MySpace, you'll
>     be buying 5 times as many boxes as the .NET guy down the hall.

(1) Although we took different path to handle m17n issue from other
    Unicode centric languages, we don't have any "stunning antipathy".
(2) Although Ruby runs slower than other languages in those
    micro-benchmarks, real bottleneck in the most application lies in
    either network connection or databases.  So we don't have to buy 5
    times as many boxes.

							matz.