Joel Spolsky on languages for web programming

I think he makes an important point that choice of technology is rarely a
proximate cause of project failure. ( EJB & Corba being the two largest risk
I can recall.)

One point he doesn't make is the difference OPM and MHC (Other Peoples Money
versus My Hard-earned Cash.) When you are spending OPM costs can become
unreal. So as an employee a "buzz-word compliant/standard approach" Java or
.NET solution might make more sense than a leaner solution that uses
unfamiliar technology. I can still recall being excoriated by peers and a
manager for choosing to use Ruby to write a proof-of-concept test. The Ruby
spike took eleven minutes to write. A Java version would have taken me 90
minutes, and I am a Ruby novice.
I often ask myself "If this were my cash would I do this?"

I love Java but I wouldn't use it to write application (cf plumbing) code,
if I were paying the bills.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Phlip [mailto:phlipcpp@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 3:46 PM
To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: Joel Spolsky on languages for web programming

Joseph wrote:

Although I respect Joel very much, I believe he makes a fundamental
mistake in his reasoning.

Joel is such a good writer that sometimes his jaw-drooping errors are
impossible to refute. (And don't encourage him; he loves it when you fight
back!)

Basically what he is saying can be deconstructed this way:

* Do not risk developing in new cutting edge technology. Even if
successful proof of concepts are already out there (37 signals et. al)
* Use what most people use: PHP / J2EE / .Net not what most experts
tell you to use. Communities and support are paramount.

The open source tools that succeed must have higher technical quality than
the Daddy Warbucks tools. The latter can afford to buy their communities and
"support" networks. Because an open source initiative cannot buy its
community and marketing, only the strong survive, and their early adopters
will form this community spontaneously. They will provide the true
word-of-mouth advertising that marketing tends to simulate.

And I am sick and tired of seeing at shops dragged down by some idiotic
language choice made between the marketeers and a computer-illiterate
executive.

* Corporations and the people in those organizations favor safety, if
your job is on the line go with the tried and true. Take no risks.

Ah, so looking like you are following best practices is more important than
doing everything you can to ensure success. Gotcha!

Yes, I have seen that upclose, too!

All three assumptions rely on a single assumption: FEAR.

* Fear the technology would eventually not deliver.
* Fear the support will not be sufficient.
* Fear regarding your job safety as a corporate developer or manager
who chooses Ruby or Ruby on Rails for some mission critical project.

Yup - that's the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt formula that Microsoft (among
others) use all the time. They have tried, over and over again, to FUD
Linux. Their CEO will get up on stage and say incredibly stupid things, like
"if an open source platform fails you, there is nobody you can go to for
help!" He means there's nobody you can sue. As if you could go to MS for
help, without paying thru the nose...

Oh, Joel is pro-Linux, right? What's the difference??

All assumptions are wrong.

Better, fear that your boss will experience misguided fear.

--
  Phlip
  http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

The information contained in and accompanying this communication is strictly
confidential and intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s).
If you have received it by mistake please let us know by reply and then
delete it from your system; you should not copy the message or disclose its
content to anyone.
MarketAxess reserves the right to monitor the content of emails sent to or
from its systems.
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of MarketAxess.
For more information, please visit www.marketaxess.com. MarketAxess Europe
Limited is regulated in the UK by the FSA, registered in England no.
4017610, registered office at 71 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BS.
Telephone (020) 7709 3100.
MarketAxess Corporation is regulated in the USA by the SEC and the NASD,
incorporated in Delaware, executive offices at 140 Broadway, New York, NY
10005. Telephone (1) 212 813 6000.

I think he makes an important point that choice of technology is rarely a
proximate cause of project failure. ( EJB & Corba being the two largest risk
I can recall.)

If he makes that point, he does so by accident. His main point is that
technology (in terms of the ecosystem surrounding the technology as part
of it) is indeed a cause of failure, and you should thus stick with the
technologies "everybody knows" are "safe", to avoid failure.

. . . assuming that by "he" you mean "Joel Spolsky".

I love Java but I wouldn't use it to write application (cf plumbing) code,
if I were paying the bills.

I wouldn't use Java for much of anything unless someone were paying me
to do it and wasn't open to alternatives. That's in large part a matter
of personal preference, though -- I don't like Java very much.

···

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:41:45AM +0900, Peter Booth wrote:

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990