On Friday 30 November 2001 19:41, you wrote:
> One approach is to show Sharp, et al, a mock-up or emulator that behaves as
> if Ruby were the de facto scripting language.
>
> It would be nice to say, 'So, if Ruby were a native scripting language, Joe
> or Jane Notageek could customize their address book or appointment calendar
> without buying several yards of programming books.'  And a demo goes a long
> way.
>
> (Ultimately, though, we need to prove that if they did this they would make
> more money.)
I don't think this is easy & they could be afraid that competitors start using
the same software -- which might be a short-sighted reaction.

The main selling point might be to convince them that they can save
money by letting their inhouse developers  (& external developers) use Ruby, 
instead of Java. But you very quickly get into religious discussions there and
Java has the push from management. 

But they should be very interested in any interest, as it's free advertising 
for them. I think Sharp gives out development machines for half-price.
(at least I saw an email like that some time ago)

Maybe anybody has a better idea,
	A
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dave / thomases.com [mailto:dave / thomases.com]On Behalf Of Dave
> > Thomas
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:27 AM
> > To: ruby-talk ML
> > Subject: [ruby-talk:27092] Re: Musing
> >
> > "James Britt (rubydev)" <james / rubyxml.com> writes:
> > > The key may be ease of installation and transparency for the average
> > > user.
> >
> > Folks - I'm talking about approaching Sharp, or Trolltech, or someone
> > in that kind of position and making Ruby the built-in, defacto
> > language for scripting PDAs.
> >
> >
> > Dave

-- 
Armin.

-----------------------------------------------
Armin Roehrl, http://www.approximity.com