Robert Klemme wrote in post #980520:
> I consider it an interesting question (although completely off topic
> here) whether all these aggregated figures can give clear information
> which school works good and which works bad.

I agree the propostion is somewhat spurious. We in the UK have a lot of
this target/metrics-orientation and it naturally leads to distortion,
obfuscation, lies and game-playing. The idea that people would reliably 
self-report on items of major importance to their school's, or their own 
personal future standing and funding, is perhaps naive.

The overall topic however is valid because it touches upon the issue of
how Ruby (or other alternatives) fit in to the World of a non-IT
professional building relatively straight-forward applications.

If you are a Ruby expert, you could knock up something like this in a
morning, based on a 15-20 minute chat. If you are new to programming,
it's a task that may take months or more.

Personally, I think Ruby (or Rails) is like the latest Airbus airliner.
It has all sorts of fantastic features to make it dead easy to do
difficult things in bad weather at bad airports, but you have to be a
trained pilot before you set foot in the simulator.

It's odd that we can't agree what other platform should be recommended
in these circumstances.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.