Il giorno 01/apr/07, alle ore 10:34, Pat M. ha scritto:
spirit"
fwiw, my company doesn’t fall in any of those categories. We’re a
“real” company building “real” software, and our software is built
entirely on Python and Rails. Revenues are definitely over $20k and
hopefully waaaaaaay more than that.
Mine too, I develop a web 2.0 project that already attracted
customers like TomTom and Havaianas - and bigger (and when I say
bigger I mean BIGGER) names that I’m not sure I can post right
now … The project is http://www.zooppa.com, and Ruby has been
choosen over other technologies because we can react to changes in no
time.
Ruby is a real technology with real, measureable benefits over
competitors (and issues too of course, just actually we have more
benefits than everything else 
ngw
On 4/1/07, Phillip G. [email protected] wrote:
I’m pretty sure most big
companies (non-specialized in IT) don’t really care how a particular job
is done, as long as it is done fast and reliable.
At least, as long as it is for internal use.
Actually, most do, and rightly so. After an initial release, a
successful
application has to be maintained for the next 10 to 30 years. At some
point
it becomes “legacy”, which typically means “nobody really understands
how
this stuff works anymore; reflecting new business changes is too slow
and
too expensive, if at all possible”. Some applications become legacy on
day 1
of production. Some don’t. Choice of technology plays a big part here.
Obscure languages become dead languages. To be stuck with an app written
in
a dead language is bad in a number of very tangible ways. Well, more and
more people who make those decisions do not put Ruby in the obscure
category
anymore.
May I cite ThoughtWorks Studios when I’m applying for jobs as a
reference of
“Real
World Ruby” usage? 
There are better examples out there, considering that Studios haven’t
released anything yet.
Well, I’m doubting that it would be possible to write “real” bloatware
in Ruby, considering it’s tendency to write in a test-driven and agile
manner.
So far, people who choose Ruby are people who have a taste for tools and
practices. Alas, much software is created by people with no such taste,
and
fragile code can be written code in any language.
I suppose it is worth capturing in a “new” post, but…
We’re now a year later … from the original post by Alexey. Rails is
well on its way (even considering Twitter).
But, I’m not sure Ruby is any further along as an accepted Enterprise
(regardless of your definition) technology. Yes, there a slew of new
books, blog posts, libraries, etc…but, what about adoption.
I would still assert that the job opportunities are the same…excluding
Rails work.
The only interesting new developments here are with JRuby and IronRuby.
That fact that both exist would indicate someone from the Enterprise
would is interested. JRuby probably more than IronRuby will bring the
potential of true Enterprise development with Ruby to bear.
Anyone else care to play catch up?
Kit