------art_100080_9541382.1175462291234
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 4/1/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan / googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure most big
> companies (non-specialized in IT) don't really care how a particular job
> is done, as long as it is done fast and reliable.
> At least, as long as it is for internal use.


Actually, most do, and rightly so. After an initial release, a successful
application has to be maintained for the next 10 to 30 years. At some point
it becomes "legacy", which typically means "nobody really understands how
this stuff works anymore; reflecting new business changes is too slow and
too expensive, if at all possible". Some applications become legacy on day 1
of production. Some don't. Choice of technology plays a big part here.

Obscure languages become dead languages. To be stuck with an app written in
a dead language is bad in a number of very tangible ways. Well, more and
more people who make those decisions do not put Ruby in the obscure category
anymore.

May I cite ThoughtWorks Studios when I'm applying for jobs as a reference of
> "Real
> World Ruby" usage? ;)


There are better examples out there, considering that Studios haven't
released anything yet.

Well, I'm doubting that it would be possible to write "real" bloatware
> in Ruby, considering it's tendency to write in a test-driven and agile
> manner.


So far, people who choose Ruby are people who have a taste for tools and
practices. Alas, much software is created by people with no such taste, and
fragile code can be written code in any language.

--
Alex

------art_100080_9541382.1175462291234--