On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 09:45:54AM +0900, William Grosso wrote:
> 
> At the risk of talking to a wall ... give me a break.
> 
> Ruby's a very nice language. Rail's an amazing framework.
> 
> But. They are neither dominant nor even close to universally
> appropriate. They have things they do well, and they have things
> they don't do well, and they have things they don't do at all.
> And they have design foci which make them appropriate for some
> tasks, and not appropriate for others.

Who said otherwise?  And why are you top-posting?


> 
> All of which should be completely obvious.
> 
> Here's the sermon: Pretending that decisions you don't understand
> were made entirely for political reasons, or because the people making
> the decision are stupid, is a sure-fire way to prevent yourself from
> ever learning anything. Instead of indulging in free-form bile, why
> not ask "What would have to be true for that to be the right decision?"

Perhaps you should read what I said a second, and maybe even third,
time.  In paraphrase, it was (summarized):

  Regardless of how good or bad a decision a given language is for a
  given task, Ruby is more likely to get you fired that Java.


> 
> You'd be surprised how much insight such a simple question can
> generate.

You might be surprised by how much actually reading and trying to
understand makes, as opposed to jumping to conclusions about someone's
malicious intent regarding a discussion of the corporate politics of
language and tool choice.

Despite the fact it got this far via top-posting, a no-no here at
ruby-talk/comp.lang.ruby, I'll leave the text you quoted at the bottom
so you can more easily peruse it again at your leisure.


> 
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 07:15:32AM +0900, Alvin Ryder wrote:
> >>As for developing major sites with Rails, most managers don't have the
> >>balls. They'd rather pay millions to get a java solution, it isn't
> >>their money on the budget so they gutlessly pour it down the java hole
> >>and hope for the best. If the project fails they blame the team or
> >>throw more money and bodies at the problem, of course it's not java's
> >>fault or theirs.
> >>
> >>Anyway I don't hold prejedice again java or c# but they are in no way a
> >>safe bet.
> >
> >Sure it is.  You'll (almost) never have to fear for your job based on a
> >decision to go with Java or a Microsoft "solution", even if it is
> >entirely the WRONG decision.  You could cost the company millions, end
> >up getting dozens of people laid off, and tank the entire project, but
> >if the language by which you did so is Java or C# you may still have job
> >security (as long as you haven't made other high-profile bad decisions).
> >The problem with job security in that circumstance only really arises if
> >there was a bitter power struggle over whether to go with Java or .NET,
> >and your side "won", then the project tanked at a cost of millions.  The
> >opposing "side" might just blame the language/framework decision.
> >
> >On the flipside, even where from a technical standpoint it's almost
> >impossible to avoid thinking something like Ruby on Rails, or Perl's
> >Catalyst, or Python's Django, is the best option, you may well find
> >yourself losing a job even if you made the right decision and the
> >project was well on its way to being a howling success.  All it takes is
> >a poorly-timed change in management structure, and they may junk all the
> >work that has already been done at a cost of millions to rewrite
> >everything in Java or C# (or, God forbid, VB.NET), and fire you and all
> >your buddies for doing great work very quickly in the "wrong" language.
> >
> >Corporate politics.  Whee.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid