------art_20612_3776055.1159984777062
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 10/4/06, Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna / blurgle.ca> wrote:
>
>  > If I offered you a message-queueing product that supported JMS but was
> > "better" in measurable and compelling ways than what you use now (and
> > parenthetically happened to have been written in Ruby), wouldn't
> > you want to
> > give it a try?
>
> Not necessarily. I mean, I have Ruby experience, but if I didn't, I
> don't know as that I'd want to have to learn a new language to use a
> new tool, even if it is "better" (unless it's vastly "better" and not
> just marginally).


In my example, what I asked was: what if I offered you a message-queueing
product *that supported JMS* ...... and happened to be written in Ruby.
No one's asking you to learn a new language, that would be singularly poor
marketing. ;-) My point with this example is that there are elements of
today's application-support stack that could do with some major
improvements, and Ruby might be a good language to use for them.

------art_20612_3776055.1159984777062--