On 11/10/06, Scott <bauer.mail / gmail.com> wrote:
> If you'll still be developing and deploying on a Windows box, you can
> use RubyCLR to leverage your existing C# classes.

I have looked at RubyCLR but it seems really green. I have not gotten
it working yet because last time I tried I couldn't compile it and
this time it's not working on Ruby 1.8.4 yet. I don't think I can
actually propose it for our projects yet, but I am eagerly watching
it.

> What is the timeframe for the project?  I think you'd be much better
> off spending the beginning of the project getting everyone up to speed
> on RoR than doing concurrent development, since one team will have
> wasted 2 weeks of work when the decision is made.  Is
> internationalization support required?

Timeframe is about 6 months according to marketing, although our
initial estimate puts it at a bit over a year. The faster we can go
the better for us (obviously). A good question is which choice would
make the development quickest. Internationalization is not required
but may be after a few releases.

If we do the spikes, we'll start with Ruby and see how the others
adapt. If there are serious problems we'll investigate further, or
we'll just start design.




> Leslie Viljoen wrote:
> > I have the deciding vote in a new (rather large) web app we need to
> > develop. I am experienced in Rails, but the other 2 guys on the team
> > know only C# and very basic Ruby. About 25% of the app could benefit
> > from existing classes written in C#.
> >
> > So I could force everyone to learn ROR, which they may or may not
> > thank me for, or I could learn ASP.NET. I know C# well but have never
> > used ASP.NET.
> >
> > I doubt execution speed would be a factor, since the bottleneck will
> > be in the database and there would be very few concurrent users. We'd
> > make a lot of use of Ajax.
> >
> > So is there any advice? Anything I should take into account? Has
> > anyone done large projects in both environments?
> >
> > Les
> >
> > --
> > Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather
> > than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always
> > astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from
> > our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the
> > contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has
> > not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.
> >
> > - Prokhor Zakharov
>
>
>


-- 
Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather
than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always
astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from
our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the
contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has
not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

- Prokhor Zakharov