« Rico Goals | Main | Rico 2.0 in the works »

March 26, 2006

Comments

Foo Bar

Doesn't it remain to be seen if it's a good choice?

Isn't that the whole argument? Just saying it's good doesn't make it good.

rcowin

Of course it remains to be seen. I have simply expressed my opinion based on my experience of several years of architectural roles within enterprise environment in the past.

I have noticed the simplest and clearest of technologies are typically those that last and are easiest to dispose of.
On the other hand, the ones typically chosen by enterprises usually require lots of training, are costly (usually requiring expensive consultants), and as a result, difficult to maintain. Usually, hight level management does not wish to dispose of these, because of the prior investments. I realize that they have different constraints and non functional requirements than small companies.

I also feel that the choice of methodologies for large enterprises follows the same path.

I think this is driven by a unbalanced ecosystem typically driven from lack of the correct constraints and the abundance of arbitrary ones.

I may have grown to be a bit cynical. However, I found out that healthy cynicism towards enterprise's decision process was required.

In general, I think the argument of whether ruby is right for the enterprise is uninteresting. It will occur in a few small areas that can get value from it for now. I think this is a bit unfortunate for the enterprise. I don't think Ruby or Rails will suffer much.

Viper

Also, the higher you get in the foodchain in a corporation, the smaller the ability for you to understand the potential of new technologies. Thats really why corporations move so slowly. No one can appreciate something till they have tried it themselves. And most corporations dont have the time to try every damn piece of technology + the idiot-in-charge doesnt help matters.

I personally think ruby would be great for internal applications and for write-once-n-throw-away applications for internal/"special-customer" use.

Roger

Would love your thoughts on this blog: http://enterprisearchitect.typepad.com/ea/2006/04/enterprise_arch.html

Srinivasan

Maybe you and McGovern haven't figured out that us Indian firms now control the long term architectures of corporations as they outsource more and more to us. We don't believe in productivity as we would rather increase billable headcount.

James

Don't have such a low threshold for measuring success. Success is Java, .NET, XML, Web Services, SOA, etc. Ruby has potential and an upward trajectory but can't yet be called successful.

In terms of getting large enterprises whose primary business model isn't technology involved in Ruby benefits Ruby by the simple fact that this demographic represents 90% (The masses) of all IT folks. More importantly, this same demographic has 590% more capital than the 10% that Ruby currently has. Capital allows folks to accelerate the growth, features and adoption of all the hard work the Ruby community put into it.

You should noodle this thought and even if you agree slightly, you should amplify it in your next blog entry...

The comments to this entry are closed.