|
|
|
|
|
|
by robryan
5766 days ago
|
|
|
It needs to at least compete with Java/PHP ect. In order to create a big enough ecosystem to provide all the libraries and core features needed and keep them up to date. As well as have enough people explaining things that new people don't feel overly intimidated. |
|
|
Why?
And you know what? It never will. Rubyists need to give this up. It's a pipe-dream. Microsoft can set up large/local conferences, charge $75, and make a sales pitch. Dozens of vendors lined up to hand out schwag and pitch their product.
For management, they don't get the best tool, but if it meets requirements, then it's a no-brainer because the most expensive component license is (usually) cheaper than the dev time to meet the basic requirements in-house (those are usually a small subset of what the component might do).
The bigger issue is that that sort of buy vs build scenario manages risk very well.
Ruby has a lot of strengths, but providing a strong story for managing risk isn't one of them. Especially if you don't bill by the hour.
The world of software development isn't winner take all. The same things that can make Ruby and Rubyists great are some of the same reasons it likely won't ever be a good fit for some of the mass-market issues Java and .NET are a good fit for.
That's OK in my book. I die a little on the inside every time someone tries to sound smart by saying "use the best tool for the job" when often there are clear and obvious winners and losers in software. But in this case... Use the best tool for the job. Or maybe just the tool you like most. If Ruby works for you and your company, you're already doing the risk management thing very well. No reason not to use it.