On 9/1/06, Dido Sevilla <dido.sevilla / gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01.html
>
> Actually, despite the fact that I love Ruby a lot, I'm inclined to
> partially agree with him on this. Presently, our company does have
> some Rails-based web applications deployed but they're predominantly
> applications geared for use by only a few people (internal client use
> only); we've not yet tried to deploy a real public-facing web
> application based on Rails. For that, it works really well. We're
> taking a wait and see attitude before we attempt to use Rails for any
> high load applications; my own experiences attempting to optimize
> plain Ruby code for performance have been simultaneously frustrating
> and rewarding. I doubt I could do the same with a Rails app. So for
> now we're gonna stick with PHP for our public facing web applications,
> even if it is even worse for i18n/l10n/m17n applications than Ruby
> is...


I find it amusing that he says Rails is too risky and new, yadda
yadda, but then he goes on to talk about their in-house language,
"Wasabi":

"Wasabi, a very advanced, functional-programming dialect of Basic with
closures and lambdas and Rails-like active records that can be
compiled down to VBScript, JavaScript, PHP4 or PHP5."

So Rails is too risky, but inventing your own language isn't?  Did
someone say "not invented here" ??

Also, I could see how looking at unicode in Rails could scare large
enterprise apps, but the scaling and slowness thing is just FUD.

- Rob
-- 
http://www.robsanheim.com
http://www.seekingalpha.com
http://www.ajaxian.com