Re: Ruby On Rails on the iSeries -- WEB400

Joe--

Both replies are completely unreasonable, show no sign ofcomprehension of anything stated, no questions answered, no validpoints replacing the earlier trash, no actual ideas or knowledgeexpressed. DRY.

Basically just doing your level best to attempt to ruin my night bycasting me as the anti-you, which I most emphatically am not. Pleasefind someone else to exercise this need against, or keep the need toyourself.

You are wrong in thinking we agree about what something is not, onlyhere to discuss what things are, and that's just not happening.

Try again if you must, but hope someone else will respond. Or go backto talking about Java or maybe EGL, where you can talk about whatsomething is, instead of warning about what you've heard it isn'tthat it's not trying to be. That might be useful.

Really do like and respect you, not at all interested in your desireto mud-wrestle.

Just didn't realize you couldn't discuss it reasonably, would need tobring boob tube style "fact" and "truth" into everything you say.


peace

over and out

--Jerome

ps hoping you do learn, really do care

Lighten up, Jerome.
I am not slagging Ruby or Rails. I've consistently said they'regood tools,
just not enterprise ready, because I don't believe dynamically typed
languages are well suited for enterprise-level business logic suchas MRP
generation.

That's a simple opinion.  Even if you disagree, calling it "slagging"
borders on the fanatical.
I pointed out some of DHH's public behaviors to indicate the kindof person
RoR users will need to deal with.
Again, my opinion. Again, even if you disagree, it's notslagging. That'sthe sort of rhetoric the far left and far right use: "if youdisagree with
me, you're attacking me".
All I'm presenting is an opposing viewpoint (and one with whichpeople farmore knowledgeable than I agree). If you disagree, great! Tell uswhy you
disagree.  But attacking me for not sharing your world view is pretty
fundamentalist of you.

And in the long run, I think we agree on my primary points:
1. Ruby is not the kind of language one uses to build enterprisebusiness
logic of the type that is called ERP (as in Enterprise Requirements
Planning).

2. Ruby is not a language for beginners.

Joe
P.S. As to my opinion of DHH, I only offered his own publicbehavior andadvised people to realize what they were getting themselves into.Again,the fact that I'm not putting him up for Man of the Year iscertainly not an
actionable offense.  <g>

Rails knows about English pluralization, so it can handle things like
this. Not sure if this extends to octopus/octopi, but if you have a
list of octopi, it probably ought be abstracted to a higher level and
called animals with a type of octopus so you'll be able to widen your
scope later. ;D
You say this lightly, but the truth is YOU DON'T KNOW. And norcould anyone
possibly know.  And there are LOTS of English words that don't follow
standard pluralization and so there ought to be a way to know (andI'll riskbeing accused of slagging again by mentioning the well known factthat the
documentation for RoR stinks).
It's a small issue but one that illustrates the dark side ofprogramming byconvention. Is it a big deal? Probably not. But dismissing theissue is
hardly the way to handle it.
And please, remember, I am NOT downing RoR.
*cough* *cough* what? male bovine excrement.
<LOL!> Even though I've gone out of my way to say that I think RoRis a
great tool, because I also have some negative points about it, I'm
"slagging" it.

I never learn...

Joe