On 9/4/06, Joseph <jlhurtado / gmail.com> wrote:
> Vidar,
>
> Risk Management IS NOT equivalent to FEAR, in that you are right.
>
> However, as I said earlier, no SIGNIFICANT progress can be expected
> without some risk.  Risk Management is about dealing with risk, not
> eliminating it.

I would have thought that eliminating risk would be a job well done
by someone responsible for Risk Management? No?

I am seeing an awful lot of chatter here along the lines that technology
decision makers are insipid jobsworths who fall in line behind the big
tech brands because they are afraid to stick their neck out. ie. the only reason
they are not picking Rails is because they don't have the stones for it.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that many of these decision makers
are very serious, ethically minded people? They take their job seriously
and feel a strong responsibility to make a correct technology decision.

I am really strongly looking at Rails at the moment for an up and coming
solution. But we got some funky requirements that may result in our use
of Rails being purely reserved for rapid prototyping and development/test
tools. While I love how quickly you can get a best-practice solution together,
and how elegant the solutions are, I am concerned that the time you
save early on you lose down the road dealing with edge problems.

The concerns are not that questions exist, but that the questions are
not being really well answered. Some concerns that I have about RoR:
- lack of good success & failure case studies with lessons learned
- library (Ruby) and plugin (Rails) immaturity
- library portability
- what happens to productivity when you go outside the rails problem domain
- how narrow is that problem domain (how easy is it to overstep)
- what happens (to productivity/performance) when your rails apps
 need to do wierd stuff like bolt-on SNMP processing ruby-code
- how forgiving is the technology, if you make mistakes/bad assumptions,
how easy is it to recover
- deployment of Rails apps/bundling rails apps
- immaturity of tools
- international support

I am happy enough with a lot of these issues to go with a Rails solution
for something non-critical or prototyping. But I can't in good faith bet the
project on it. I would be happy enough to wait a year though and see what
happens to my concerns as it is moving really rapidly, in the meantime
levelling up my Rails skills.

Don't assume decision makers are stupid or spineless. Their responsibility
is to their employer, it is not their responsibility to promote a technology.
They read mailing lists and bloggers and case studies and do google searches.
They see the extended debates on multinational rails, performance/scalability,
plugin life-expectancy and weak/unknown applicability outside of classic
web apps. Sure the rapid development aspects with implicit bet practices
is great, thats why they are looking at it in the first place, thats the carrot.

I would like it to be ready for prime time now, because next year I probably
won't be in a position to put in place any Rails solution. And it sure is a
lot of fun to work with - I can code for fun at home, but if I get my
employer to
adopt it i can get paid for RoR-ing too.