On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> s.ross wrote:
> | On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Jeremy McAnally wrote:
> |
> | And there are no similar companies who would either profit from or  
> be
> | helped by superior Ruby documentation? Everyone from IBM to Sun to  
> Apple
> | to (even) Microsoft now have stakes in Ruby. All the Rails-centric
> | hosting services are stakeholders. Surely they are as invested if  
> not
> | more so than Zend and/or Yahoo in the early days of PHP.
>
> Not really, no. Their interests are different than that of Zend or
> Yahoo!. Zend benefits from sales of their PHP runtime (or benefited,
> it's been awhile since I was looking at the state of the PHP  
> ecosystem),
> and Yahoo can recruit developers easier (their services run on PHP).

Sun (apparently) benefits when the Java runtime is distributed. All  
the hardware vendors benefit when more applications are written for  
their platforms. When I say these vendors have embraced Ruby, what I  
really mean is that they've latched onto Rails. They see the benefit  
of Rails and how people deploying more applications is a path to  
selling more platforms (either OS or hardware). Right now, there are  
fewer good Ruby programmers available than most other segments of the  
programming community. Good developers tend to be good learners, and  
the better the material, the more quickly they can learn. More  
programmers implies more applications, which may mean more indirect  
sales for IBM, Sun, etc. So, while they are not selling proprietary  
Ruby runtimes, there are many companies who profit if the people who  
write Rails apps can "speak the language," as it were.

> Sun, IBM, etc. profit by providing tools to developers. However, only
> indirectly, since the runtimes, connectors, or IDEs offered are open
> source, and not directly sold, or the projects were acquired to  
> benefit
> the core business (.NET/Java in case of MS/Sun, DB2 in case of Java).
>
> And the Rails hosters? How do they profit from a better Ruby
> documentation? They only have to care about Rails' API, and the Rails
> blogosphere covers that, too (see Railscasts, for example). These folk
> care about easy hosting of Ruby. And IronRuby or JRuby make that  
> easier,
> as well as the new mod_rails by Phusion will help in that area, too.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Rails  
hosters do not benefit from managing servers in a constant state of  
meltdown from rogue Ruby processes. Is this the fault of the  
documentation? I don't think so, but again, I believe it's possible to  
convince yourself you can write a Rails application without grokking  
much of Ruby.