it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
I think matz’s thoughts on the direction of Ruby are articulated here:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/oopsla2002/mgp00001.html
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 04:07 AM, Shannon Fang wrote:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Hi –
[From Bulat Z.:]
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?
It’s a particularly malicious bunch of nonsense from our resident
troll. Don’t take what he says seriously.
I’m keep hoping he’ll go away… though unfortunately it doesn’t look
likely. In more than twelve years of Usenet participation, he is
literally the only person I’ve ever killfiled. It is not at all
surprising to me that he has escalated to openly insulting matz. I
imagine it will only get worse.
David
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Shannon Fang wrote:
–
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav
Hi,
In message “Re: help – persuade my boss to adopt ruby” on 02/12/12, “Shannon Fang” xrfang@hotmail.com writes:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?
I don’t think so. Ruby was his toy at the beginning, but this fact
does not mean it remains being a toy forever. Speaking of “features
needed for corporate use”, we have to define what they are. I’m sure
that Ruby will never be COBOL. For THAT kind of “corporate use”, my
company sponsors opencobol as well as Ruby.
matz.
Hi,
Reading the web page(s), I could not find an explicit answer on whether
"Matz never will appreciate features needed for corporate use." I do hope
that this statement is false.
Regards,
Bill
Mark Wilson mwilson13@cox.net wrote:
I think matz’s thoughts on the direction of Ruby are articulated here:
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 04:07 AM, Shannon Fang wrote:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?
Hello dblack,
Friday, December 13, 2002, 8:27:54 AM, you wrote:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
literally the only person I’ve ever killfiled. It is not at all
surprising to me that he has escalated to openly insulting matz
it insulting me, not matz 
ruby is perfect language which don’t have
a future because his purity. i think it will dupe smalltalk way. any
genius idea traverse 3 stages and ruby is only stage 2 of OO
programming. C++ and even Eiffel has more appreciation because his
authors know about COMPROMISES and don’t kill the chicks whichs gives
gold eggs
–
Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru
Hi,
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?I don’t think so. Ruby was his toy at the beginning,
Ditto c, c++, lisp, linux, perl, etc.
Also, ditto the steam engine, the Apple computer, the telephone, the
airplane, the phonograph, television ad infinitum, by way of
perspective.
“God created the world as man’s playground; it is the job of science to
provide the toys.”
but this fact
does not mean it remains being a toy forever.
Ditto (see above examples).
Speaking of “features
needed for corporate use”, we have to define what they are.
Extensibility, scalability, cost efficiency, value propagation,
maintainability, security, productivity, accoutability, logevity.
Not in any particular order of priority (which indeed varies from
company to company and from project to project within a given company.)
So, where does Ruby fit into the picture here? How does it compare to
other mainstream languages (which in the US are c/c++, java, perl and to
a lesser degree python and smalltalk.
And how does Ruby, or ~any~ of the above stack up with regard to the
"next big thing", which is likely to be some kind of distributed/grid
computing environment, possibly XML-based?
For that matter, where do “corporations”, as presently structured, fit
into and increasingly open-sourced global information environment?
Some of the possible answers are technical oriented, others more
socialogical in nature, with the “line” between the two, vis a vis the
"big picture" increasingly indistinct.
Comments?
Regards,
W. Kent Starr
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 18:37, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
In message “Re: help – persuade my boss to adopt ruby” > on 02/12/12, “Shannon Fang” xrfang@hotmail.com writes:
Hi Matz,
Thanks for the clarification. It is really comforting to read your
reply. Regarding “corporate use”, I guess for me it is anything that will
enable us to really earn living using Ruby. (Just for fun I scanned the
jobs section of washingtonpost.com, which is really relevant in my
geographical area, and I entered the keyword ‘ruby’; so far there is no
company seeking Ruby programmers yet. When such an opening can be found,
then for me Ruby is really being used for “corporate use” ).
I always thank you for creating and contributing a wonderful language to
the programming world.
Regards,
Bill
Yukihiro Matsumoto matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:
Hi,
In message “Re: help – persuade my boss to adopt ruby” > on 02/12/12, “Shannon Fang” xrfang@hotmail.com writes:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?
I don’t think so. Ruby was his toy at the beginning, but this fact
does not mean it remains being a toy forever. Speaking of “features
needed for corporate use”, we have to define what they are. I’m sure
that Ruby will never be COBOL. For THAT kind of “corporate use”, my
company sponsors opencobol as well as Ruby.
matz.
William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
Reading the web page(s), I could not find an explicit answer on whether
"Matz never will appreciate features needed for corporate use." I do hope
that this statement is false.
“Only the true messiah denies his divinity” - Monty Python
–
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.org/PerfideousDelinquency
– “The Epiphany of the Epiphenomenon of the Epiphysis”
- some jerk-off maliciously pretending to be Henry Miller –
I never heard that he made that statement. But, even if he did, and even
if he still believes it, it is irrelevant.
An early 20th century composer characterized a certain work of his as
merely “an exercise in orchestration” and stated that no serious
orchestra would ever perform it in public. To date, there are close to
70 cds, which include performances by most of the major symphony
orchestras of the world, in which this work is featured, not to mention
a feature film where the score is the central musical piece and which
bears the title of the same.
The composer? Maurice Ravel.
The score? Bolero
The moral of the story? –
(1) the artist is often the least competent judge of the value of
his/her creation(s)
(2) as William Gibson noted “the street finds its own uses for things”,
meaning that, ulitimately, the creation takes on a life of its own in
the hans of its users
(3) prognostication in the specific is most often inaccurate
Bolero survived and flourished because it is at once elegant but robust,
simple but powerful, timely but enduring.
Hmmm…sorta like Ruby.
Regards,
W. Kent Starr
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 23:48, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
Mark Wilson mwilson13@cox.net wrote:
I think matz’s thoughts on the direction of Ruby are articulated here:
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 04:07 AM, Shannon Fang wrote:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?Hi,
Reading the web page(s), I could not find an explicit answer on whether
"Matz never will appreciate features needed for corporate use." I do hope
that this statement is false.Regards,
Bill
Hello William,
Friday, December 13, 2002, 7:48:55 AM, you wrote:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Reading the web page(s), I could not find an explicit answer on whether
"Matz never will appreciate features needed for corporate use." I do hope
i mean “Matz don’t interested in creating languages for large-team,
corporate use”. ruby is adressed for individual programmer, which
prefer to write less code than to write error-proof programs
–
Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru
I think such discussions are exercises in futility. Ruby will be what
it will be regardless of what is said on this group.
On Sunday, 15 December 2002 at 14:55:22 +0900, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello dblack,
Friday, December 13, 2002, 8:27:54 AM, you wrote:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
literally the only person I’ve ever killfiled. It is not at all
surprising to me that he has escalated to openly insulting matzit insulting me, not matz
ruby is perfect language which don’t have
a future because his purity. i think it will dupe smalltalk way. any
genius idea traverse 3 stages and ruby is only stage 2 of OO
programming. C++ and even Eiffel has more appreciation because his
authors know about COMPROMISES and don’t kill the chicks whichs gives
gold eggs
Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on
people.
– W. C. Fields
I don’t think so. Ruby was his toy at the beginning,
Ditto c, c++, lisp, linux, perl, etc.
Also, ditto the steam engine, the Apple computer, the telephone, the
airplane, the phonograph, television ad infinitum, by way of
perspective.“God created the world as man’s playground; it is the job of science to
provide the toys.”
Wonderful quote. It’s going in my list. Who said it? You?
I saw one recently I enjoyed: “If I have not seen as far
as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders.” 
but this fact
does not mean it remains being a toy forever.Ditto (see above examples).
Speaking of “features
needed for corporate use”, we have to define what they are.Extensibility, scalability, cost efficiency, value propagation,
maintainability, security, productivity, accoutability, logevity.Not in any particular order of priority (which indeed varies from
company to company and from project to project within a given company.)So, where does Ruby fit into the picture here? How does it compare to
other mainstream languages (which in the US are c/c++, java, perl and to
a lesser degree python and smalltalk.
My simplistic view: If Perl can get a foot in the door, so can
Ruby. Perhaps even a leg. But things take time.
As for Java, it didn’t get its huge mindshare from technical
superiority, but from hype; it was marketing-driven rather
than technology-driven. (Although I’m not the Java-hater that
so many are. I much prefer it to C++, for instance.)
And how does Ruby, or ~any~ of the above stack up with regard to the
"next big thing", which is likely to be some kind of distributed/grid
computing environment, possibly XML-based?
Interesting. Who’s speculating along those lines?
For that matter, where do “corporations”, as presently structured, fit
into and increasingly open-sourced global information environment?Some of the possible answers are technical oriented, others more
socialogical in nature, with the “line” between the two, vis a vis the
"big picture" increasingly indistinct.
When someone asks this kind of question, I always
shrug and say, “No speaka English.”
Hal
----- Original Message -----
From: “W. Kent Starr” wyzzrd@bellsouth.net
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: help – persuade my boss to adopt ruby
In article atjfk7$q14$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu,
Hi,
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
Is it really Matz’s opinion, and the direction of Ruby?I don’t think so. Ruby was his toy at the beginning, but this fact
does not mean it remains being a toy forever. Speaking of “features
needed for corporate use”, we have to define what they are. I’m sure
that Ruby will never be COBOL. For THAT kind of “corporate use”, my
company sponsors opencobol as well as Ruby.matz.Hi Matz,
Thanks for the clarification. It is really comforting to read your
reply. Regarding “corporate use”, I guess for me it is anything that will
enable us to really earn living using Ruby. (Just for fun I scanned the
jobs section of washingtonpost.com, which is really relevant in my
geographical area, and I entered the keyword ‘ruby’; so far there is no
company seeking Ruby programmers yet. When such an opening can be found,
then for me Ruby is really being used for “corporate use”
Well, that doesn’t mean that no companies in the DC area are using Ruby.
It just means that nobody’s hiring Ruby programmers at this moment in
time. About a year and a half ago when I was trying to convince some
management types that we should use Ruby for a particular project one of
their objections was that no other significant companies in the area used
Ruby. Well, it turns out that there were indeed some folks at Intel
beginning to use Ruby at that time and I would tend to think that Intel
counts as a significant company. Intel wasn’t advertising for Ruby
programmers, so who knew?
My point here is that you really have no idea what is being used where.
Lot’s of technologies (languages, OS’s, etc) tend to sneak in the backdoor
when an engineer decides to use them on a project where there is a good
fit and (initially) low visibility. There was a time when you couldn’t
tell your boss you were using Linux or Perl or even Java for that matter.
Now they’re out in the open, but it took time and persistence to get them
there (and a good dose of marketing in the case of Java :).
[BTW: one way to tell who is using Ruby is to take a look at some of the
email addresses of people who post here… seems to me that I’ve seen
addresses from places like HP, Agilent, Intel, NASA, NOAA… Hey that
might make an interesting thread.]
I always thank you for creating and contributing a wonderful language to
the programming world.
Indeed.
Phil
William Djaja Tjokroaminata billtj@z.glue.umd.edu wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:
In message “Re: help – persuade my boss to adopt ruby” >> on 02/12/12, “Shannon Fang” xrfang@hotmail.com writes:
–
"Or perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?"
Amy Weiss (accusing theregister.co.uk of engaging in ‘tabloid journalism’)
Senior VP, Communications
Recording Industry Association of America
[snip]
I entered the keyword ‘ruby’; so far there is no company seeking Ruby
programmers yet. When such an opening can be found, then for me Ruby is
really being used for “corporate use”
[snip]
same here (colorado), but plenty of small businesses are all ears when the
converstation starts with “i can do this better, faster, and cheaper in
ruby…”
it is up to the kind of people reading this group to market ruby (imho).
maybe a
[FAQ] convince your boss to use ruby
and
[FAQ] why mom and pop business could benefit from ruby software
are in order?
i have experience with the former. anyone else?
I always thank you for creating and contributing a wonderful language to
the programming world.
amen.
-a
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
–
====================================
Ara Howard
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
Information and Technology Services
Data Systems Group
R/FST 325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80305-3328
Email: ahoward@fsl.noaa.gov
Phone: 303-497-7238
Fax: 303-497-7259
====================================
W. Kent Starr wrote:
Speaking of “features
needed for corporate use”, we have to define what they are.Extensibility, scalability, cost efficiency, value propagation,
maintainability, security, productivity, accoutability, logevity.
Perl is used extensively for “corporate use” but there is nothing that I
can do in Perl that cannot be done easier in Ruby (and much cleaner I
must add). Ruby is a superiour language to Perl in all ways.
So why do we use Perl? CPAN!
Is CPAN a feature of the language? No
CPAN is a feature of the community, if befunge had its own CPAN library
then befunge would be be used more in corporate settings. There is
nothing about Perl that a multitude of languages can’t do and can’t do
better (I rather like SNOBOL and ICON).
The phrase “features needed for corporate use” is weasel marketing speak
and the phrase “value propagation” only confirms it (and what on earth
is “accoutability” as a language featue). Just examine your list of
"features needed for corporate use" against the following languages and
see how many fall short on many criteria…
C/C++ Java COBOL FORTRAN LISP PASCAL BASIC Perl Python Tcl Forth
Then explain why they are used.
Hello Jim,
Sunday, December 15, 2002, 3:24:00 PM, you wrote:
it’s the MATZ’S position that Ruby will never be REAL WORLD language.
it’s his own toy and never will appreciate features needed for
corporate use
I think such discussions are exercises in futility. Ruby will be what
it will be regardless of what is said on this group.
my point is that someone can’t fire managers which dont want to use
ruby. instead he must fire Matz because Matz don’t want to see at real
world ™. of course, it’s a lot easier and politically corect to say
about some abstract boss than about real Matz who read all these
"discussions"
–
Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru
“God created the world as man’s playground; it is the job of science to
provide the toys.”Wonderful quote. It’s going in my list. Who said it? You?
Oops. I fleahed this out and was going to attribute it before I posted,
then got interrupted and forgot. The quote is a statement attributed to
Scientific American founder Rufus Porter (or perhaps Ely Beach, to whome
it was sold early on); I can’t find the reference). I first encountered
the quote in a preface to the book re The First Great Paper Airplance
contest (1967/68) sponsored by that magazine. You’re right, it’s a good
one; wish it ~were~ mine.
I saw one recently I enjoyed: “If I have not seen as far
as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders.”but this fact
does not mean it remains being a toy forever.Ditto (see above examples).
Speaking of “features
needed for corporate use”, we have to define what they are.Extensibility, scalability, cost efficiency, value propagation,
maintainability, security, productivity, accoutability, logevity.Not in any particular order of priority (which indeed varies from
company to company and from project to project within a given company.)So, where does Ruby fit into the picture here? How does it compare to
other mainstream languages (which in the US are c/c++, java, perl and to
a lesser degree python and smalltalk.My simplistic view: If Perl can get a foot in the door, so can
Ruby. Perhaps even a leg. But things take time.
Perl was subversive. No one at the top mandated adoption of perl – the
Morlocks liked it.
As for Java, it didn’t get its huge mindshare from technical
superiority, but from hype; it was marketing-driven rather
than technology-driven. (Although I’m not the Java-hater that
so many are. I much prefer it to C++, for instance.)
Java has GC – that is both an advantage and, in terms of how it is
implemented, a disadvantage. But the GC was a big part of its “hype”
(that coupled with the fact it is ~not~ MSFT, lol). The awt GUI was, in
a word, awful (as in fugly); swing is far better but painfully slow on
Linux (at least in my experience; I really like the concept of jedit,
but don’t run it because it is just to slow.). C++ with a good GUI
framework like wxWindows is a very workable alternative for standalone
apps, but I don’t think that is where the future direction of computing.
And how does Ruby, or ~any~ of the above stack up with regard to the
"next big thing", which is likely to be some kind of distributed/grid
computing environment, possibly XML-based?Interesting. Who’s speculating along those lines?
I am.
My vision is decentralized servers, globally shared resources,
horizontal distribution – a fully hyperlinked world. This is in a
social context as well as a technical one. XML may be a key enabling
technology here. Another quote for your collection, this one from Steve
Litt (March 2001, Troubleshooting Professional Magazine,
Troubleshooters.com):
“XML derives its power from the fact that it can represent anything the
human mind can conceive.”
To the degree this observation is accurate, the potential is
mind-boggling. IMO opinion, within the specific domain of programming,
Ruby exhibits to a large degree these same characteristics.
Yes, speed ~is~ an issue, but a relative. Relative to c/c++ for example,
Ruby can be “slow” as can be XML relative to some other data formats.
But, given the “vision” paragraph above, there is not much “real” gain
in producing things significantly faster than I can stuff into the
pipe. Also, speed ~to~ delivery (i.e. development) may be more important
than speed ~of~ delivery (i.e. performance) in a majority of situations.
Cost efficiency, market positioning and maintainability will frequently
overshadow pure performance issues IMO, especially within domains where
"perceived" performance is at the nether end of a relatively narrow
pipe.
Hey, I coul;d be wrong. I was told I was “wrong” about the desktop
revolution I raved about in 1983 (actually the word used was “crazy”),
my observations regarding the damages wrought by regulatory costs to
small business in 1990/91 (the word used then was “radical”) which the
Wall Street Journal began reporting in 1994, and some others I have
called and colleagues did not; but, I have a “good feeling” about this
one.
Regards,
W. Kent Starr
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 19:45, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
i just did a balsa wood prototype used in a funds pitch made for a grid
computing system being proposed for use here at NOAA which would be used for
testing modifications done to weather models. apparently lots of money is
being thrown at this idea, but i’m way down the food chain so i don’t know
alot (almost nothing really) about it. perhaps this is one time where the
government is ahead of current trends!
btw. i never could have done the prototype under the given time constraints
in the other languages i know (c, c++, java, or perl) - ruby saved the day for
me. just thought i’d throw that in there
-a
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
And how does Ruby, or ~any~ of the above stack up with regard to the
"next big thing", which is likely to be some kind of distributed/grid
computing environment, possibly XML-based?Interesting. Who’s speculating along those lines?
–
====================================
Ara Howard
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
Information and Technology Services
Data Systems Group
R/FST 325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80305-3328
Email: ahoward@fsl.noaa.gov
Phone: 303-497-7238
Fax: 303-497-7259
====================================
Hello Hal,
Monday, December 16, 2002, 3:45:43 AM, you wrote:
My simplistic view: If Perl can get a foot in the door, so can
Ruby. Perhaps even a leg. But things take time.
of course, the language itself is better than perl in any ways
As for Java, it didn’t get its huge mindshare from technical
superiority, but from hype; it was marketing-driven rather
than technology-driven. (Although I’m not the Java-hater that
so many are. I much prefer it to C++, for instance.)
java is “c++ better than c++” and just in this role java conquered
the world. i say in my original posting about that type of use - ruby
can be used for large-scale, compiled applications, but Matz waits
that corporate America will go to the pure Ruby rather than adding
features which will drive Ruby to corporate world
concrete, i feel that Ruby is not strict enough and can’t be compiled
for more or less fast execution. when i try to advocate these changes,
Matz says that Ruby is more or less a toy and he wants to find more
elegant ways to deal with these issues. beatiful! but on other side,
this gives us to the fact that Ruby will never steal Java place at
language racing
i don’n like the doublethinking i see here - when Ruby apologets says
"it’s not Ruby way" they must realize that in fact they say “wide
appreciation of language is not Ruby way”. Ruby will be a pure
language which seek for future language directions OR instrument for
Real Programmers - not both at the same time
–
Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru