Like in, "Thus, sometimes "enterprise" might be used sarcastically to mean overly complex software."? ;)
IMHO, the somewhat interesting mixture of developers and marketing guys at Microsoft tend to not care about the one most important thing there is, which is the user of course. There's just no need for a multi-gigabyte IDE, if the underlying framework was designed in an easy-to-use straightforward way. For example, I'm totally productive here in an easy to use text editor that not even has a tool bar. That's because the framework isn't bloated to extends where you lose all ability to comprehend what's going on without help from an IDE. Thrust me, I did work on huuuuge projects (like a project that had the biggest oracle installation in europe at the time). And the one crucial thing i've learned is that less software[1] is a good thing. I believe we're pretty good with Prototype and RoR on delivering environments that make doing this easier. (Hopefully!) :) Of course, that's my experience, so YMMV-- happy coding (with Prototype, i hope!)... :) Best, Thomas [1] http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch10_Less_Software.php Am 31.01.2007 um 16:19 schrieb Ryan Gahl: > Here's a good place to get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Enterprise_application > > > On 1/31/07, Thomas Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did you notice the.. ;) ? > > Anyway, we could talk to no end on what "enterprise caliber > application development" really means (if it means anything), but I > guess that time is better spend otherwise. :) > > Best, > Thomas > > Am 31.01.2007 um 14:24 schrieb Ryan Gahl: > >> Sorry Thomas, your bashing is becoming a bit annoying now. There >> are a lot of comparisons between C# and java out there. C# has >> pros, java has pros. .NET in general (no matter which of the many >> languages you chose to write against the platform) offers quite a >> lot for productivity enhancement that java does not, tooling of >> course being one of those. I will not try to enumerate all of this >> here though, as others have done it many times over and far better >> than I could... >> >> I'll just say that I'm always amazed when people say .NET is hard >> to work with. It's got to be about the easiest thing in the world, >> especially if you take into account now all the free tools you can >> get (you literally do not need VS.NET full edition anymore with >> the various Express packages out there, and can create the same >> level application), not to mention community supported starter >> kits, etc... >> >> MS definitely takes inspiration from others for things, but they >> also innovate quite a lot. It's not the perfect platform, but that >> does not exist. >> >> It's for enterprise caliber application development on a large >> scale with minimal effort. Not something anyone is ever going to >> attempt with Ruby (at least anyone in their right minds). Yes, >> java is a fine alternative if you're not an MS enterprise, but >> you'll certainly spend more time implementing and maintaining the >> solution. The tradeoff there is short term cost of ownership... >> there are a lot of factors, Thomas, that you are either not aware >> of or are downplaying quite a bit. >> >> So anyway, bash away if you must, but it really sounds a bit dumb >> after a point. >> >> On 1/31/07, Thomas Fuchs < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Am 31.01.2007 um 00:22 schrieb RobG: >> >> > On Jan 31, 4:27 am, Thomas Fuchs < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I see that C# doesn't get enough bashing, so here it goes: >> > >> > Are you bashing C# as a language, or just how MS have used it in >> their >> > web development tools? >> >> They could have used Java in the first place, no need to "invent" a >> new language. >> I guess that's just the NIH thing big companies have. :) >> >> >> So, now for a Beer 2.0 Liter Ultimate Advanced Edition. ;) >> > >> > Someone with your nom de plume should know how to spell litre. :-) >> >> MS is an American company, not British ;) >> >> > -- >> > Rob >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> -- >> Thomas Fuchs >> wollzelle >> >> http://www.wollzelle.com >> >> questentier on AIM >> madrobby on irc.freenode.net >> >> http://www.fluxiom.com :: online digital asset management >> http://script.aculo.us :: Web 2.0 JavaScript >> http://mir.aculo.us :: Where no web developer has gone before >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.someElement.com >> >> > > -- > Thomas Fuchs > wollzelle > > http://www.wollzelle.com > > questentier on AIM > madrobby on irc.freenode.net > > http://www.fluxiom.com :: online digital asset management > http://script.aculo.us :: Web 2.0 JavaScript > http://mir.aculo.us :: Where no web developer has gone before > > > > > > > > > > -- > Ryan Gahl > Application Development Consultant > Athena Group, Inc. > Inquire: 1-920-955-1457 > Blog: http://www.someElement.com > > -- Thomas Fuchs wollzelle http://www.wollzelle.com questentier on AIM madrobby on irc.freenode.net http://www.fluxiom.com :: online digital asset management http://script.aculo.us :: Web 2.0 JavaScript http://mir.aculo.us :: Where no web developer has gone before --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
