Re: Ruby On Rails on the iSeries

[Jerome Hughes <jromeh@xxxxxxx>]

Joe--

Starting to get the idea that the reason the idea of one slide with  
two words on it upsets you so is that you're one of the people he was  
addressing. Not meaning to put words in his mouth, but believe it was  
those who are attempting to either...

a) bend the goals of _his_ framework to _their_ needs without taking  
time to understand its goals

b) say that _his_ framework "is absolutely not yet ready for prime  
time" when it really just isn't fitting their needs as they have them  
defined, at "enterprise-level" which is typically really just code  
for "the order of qualified individuals like me"

Personally find that candor refreshing and believe that it's one of  
the reasons there's as much goodness there in so short a time.

If this sampling isn't evidence of prime time for web applications,  
what would it take to convince you that it is?

        http://rubyonrails.org/applications

thx & hth,

--Jerome

ps not trying to get you going, but why try to slow it down? imo much  
better to use it for what you decide it's good for and raid it for  
good ideas to borrow and use elsewhere (the sincerest form)

pps seems to be how IBM is looking at it, as is Apple


On Aug 17, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Joe Pluta wrote:

> > From: James Rich
> >
> > > And while I understand your point, please see my note to Jerome.   
> > > If you
> > > decide to use RoR as a mission critical system component, you are
> > > implicitly taking on DHH as a partner in your company.  It's just
> > > something you need to consider.
> >
> > This is not nearly as true in the case of RoR as it is in the case of
> > Microsoft (or even IBM).  I'd rather partner with a guy who cusses  
> > than an
> > unethical company like Microsoft.
>
> There's a big difference, though.  I can buy Microsoft or IBM tools  
> and run
> my business on them today.  If I choose to not continue business  
> with them,
> I still have a working system that will last for some time.   
> Granted this is
> less true with Microsoft's "continuous beta" software methodology,  
> and even
> IBM's minus-two release issue.  But still, there are people running  
> on S/36
> iron out there.
>
> With something like RoR, which is absolutely not yet ready for  
> prime time
> (as I've noted, things like security and internationalization are  
> severely
> lacking), you have to sort of rely on the kindness of strangers  
> when it
> comes to whether or not these things will get done and when.  And  
> should you
> choose to NOT wait and go off and roll your own, then you run the  
> risk of
> not being compatible with the language when it does catch up.  So,  
> yes,
> you're in bed with IBM or Microsoft; with RoR you're in the car and  
> they're
> driving.
>
>
> > Good points in this discussion are being made though, and it is  
> > certainly
> > true that RoR needs to be evaluated by each person considering  
> > deploying
> > it.  But that's no different than any tech afaict.
>
> Absolutely agreed.  I'm just trying to slow down the juggernaut a tad.
>
> Joe
>
>
> --
> This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
> To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
> or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.