On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Alexey Verkhovsky wrote:

> Ruby *is* acceptable to "the enterprise". We were saying this since a year
> and half ago, the difference now is that we have plenty of "enterprises" who
> agree with this.

Ruby has been acceptable to "enterprise" for a lot longer than that.  I've 
been using it to deliver applications for banks, investment companies, 
mutual funds, construction companies, environmental management companies, 
and many others for 5 years.  In most cases they didn't care one whit what 
the implementation language was so long as the project was delivered on 
time and on budget.

I never asked permission to start using Ruby in this way.  I just started 
doing it and didn't worry about it, and in 5 years I can only count a 
single time where I ever lost work because I was going to do it in Ruby.

Most of the time businesses who's core business is not software just did 
not care about the details regarding how their needs were to be fulfilled. 
This was true before the Rails hype, and it's true now.  We get almost 
every contract we go after, and they just don't care what the programming 
language is.

It's in the businesses and the business units where they do deal with 
software and software engineering regularly that they care.  Those are the 
places that have taken a lot longer to break into with Ruby.


Kirk haines