Michael Pavling wrote in post #978365: > On 28 January 2011 15:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> If you were my client, and you responded "because I want it" when I >>>> asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn't get the feature. >>> >>> Now *that's* customer service! :-) (but poor economics [1]) >> >> It's excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they >> want, and do not spend money on things they don't want. > > Again, I think you're confusing needs and wants (and blurring it more > with your interpretation of what they need).
I do understand the difference. I also understand that people think they want things that, when questioned, they cannot explain why they want nor provide any justification for. That's the same as saying "I want a pony": sure, you may want it, but is it worth spending time and effort on? > They can hardly "get what > they *want*" if you also decide that they "wouldn't get the feature". You missed my point. I ask my clients why they want something, so I can prioritize and understand how things fit together in their minds. I wouldn't be satisfied with receiving an answer of "because I want it" -- I'd dig deeper to see what the real reason was. You shouldn't be satisfied with *giving* an answer of "because I want it" either. It's a cheap shot, and, frankly, a cop-out. It tells me that you haven't even bothered to think about why you want a particular feature, you just want it. Pony. :) > Either way, it's academic, as how you manage your customer relations > is up to you (but if they *really want* those features that you and I > both know are pointless... if you don't want to do it, send them my > way and I'll give them a quote for the work ;-) You waste your clients' time and money on feature bloat? :) > >> The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you >> want something, you should still be able to explain *why* you want it, >> not just "because I want it". > > Getting into psychology now... sometimes people *can't* justify their > wants (or they just like something more for no particular reason). Can't justify their wants? Example? (Note that I think "because it's ugly" is in many cases a valid justification.) > >>> You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really >>> understand what you mean: how can an IDE not "suit" Rails? >> >> <snip interesting answer> > > Interesting.. but largely personal preference [1]... what you see as > "the primary benefits of conventional IDEs" is probably different to > what others may list. OK, now I'm getting upset -- not that you disagree with me, but at how you're choosing to argue. You asked me about why I think conventional IDEs don't suit Rails. I answered at some length. So far as I can tell, instead of actually responding to my answer, you simply handwaved it. If you disagree with what I wrote, please tell me what you disagree with. In other words, if you think others may list different key features, then list some! > Or maybe the using the term "IDE" is a red > herring (as it may not mean the same to everyone), and really what I > mean when I say IDE is "the editing software I use to write my apps". > (to me, any software with features more then editing and saving > plain-text files is starting on the road to IDE... some just > "integrate" more features than others) I consider an IDE to start somewhere above a project-aware editor -- perhaps with things like build tools, project management, shell integration, Rake task invocation, and so on. (KomodoEdit actually has a very nice module that, by that definition, makes it an IDE for developing its own extension modules.) > >> I'll turn the question around: what do you get out of using an IDE for >> Rails, in terms of features that a decent editor wouldn't provide? > > I've already said - I want VCS and debugging integration. So do I, other things being equal. But those two features alone are not enough for me to incur the overhead of something like NetBeans. > >> NetBeans' Git plugin is fantastic. I just don't see it as fantastic >> enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE. > > Whereas I think that the Mercurial plugin *is* fantastic enough to > saddle myself with the rest of it... personal preference again! Or the fact that Mercurial is harder to use than Git and needs one more crutch. :) Seriously, I wonder if you'd feel this way if you were using Git. GitX is a marvelous standalone GUI tool; I am not sure that anything comparable exists for Mercurial. > >> BTW, even if NB is officially dumping Rails, couldn't you still use its >> Ruby support? And don't you think someone is likely to take up >> maintenance of the Rails tools? > > Probably, and probably. To a large degree, I don't really use the > "Rails" features anyway. THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU USING NETBEANS?!? Perhaps I shouldn't have shouted that; it just seems to me that you're saying you want to use a big heavy IDE that you don't use 90% of the features of. How can this be sane? > It just seems disappointing to be at the end > of life for a product that's been getting better and better. How would you know? As you've pointed out, you don't even really use it. > To know > it is never likely to get better WTF? NB is actively looking for someone to take it over. Frankly, I'd trust a group of Rails enthusiasts to make it better more than I'd trust the notoriously unresponsive NB core team to do so. > still was just a spur to me to look > around again (after using Netbeans for a couple of years, I've been > using Rubymine for the last three days, and have some observations > that I shall post separately) Good. Then also please consider which of your "showstoppers" really have to be showstoppers. > > > > [1] I think we should all agree that we will *always* _know_ for > certain that the choice we made for ourselves is the best. No. There are times when I am not sure. > > We should also know we'll *never* convince someone that made a > different choice that we are right and that our choice is better for > them than their choice. Again no. I have done this many times. > > I refer to this Dilbert cartoon: > http://bit.ly/hP9Bk1 > > :-) Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] Sent from my iPhone -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en.
