3 ms·

Sort of. How do you justify the fact that the corporate world is not coping with the technology very well?

jmcgough 8y ago
> Despite the great advantages of using Rails in a new project, there was an area where Ruby was not able to penetrate, and not even Rails was a good ambassador. I'm talking about the corporate world. There are of course some exceptions, and one can always point some successful corporate use cases where Ruby was adopted either for new projects or as a rewrite of existing ones in. But we're still to see a mass adoption of the technology by well established companies. There are several reasons for this, but this opinion was developed based only on gut feeling and I have no clear data to validate it. Thus, I'm not going to elaborate on the reasons why Ruby is not massively used on the corporate market. I found this paragraph really hard to grep given how vague it is, but I'm assuming that he's euphemistically saying that his team/company was either not interested or not able to learn the language/framework. That would have been a more interesting article to me if he'd expanded on that. If the team isn't interested in using some tech, then that's a sufficient reason itself to not use it. If they don't want to learn any language beyond what they're comfortable with, I'd be pretty concerned about that kind of culture, because it'll hurt them in the long-run. If the issue is actually that they can't deliver rails projects to clients because corporate people can't write ruby, then that's more important than any other reason given in the article.
- tfranco 8y ago
  I've been using Rails since 2008, and participated in more than 100 projects in these last 10 years. Either by coding or managing them. Most of these were Rails projects. Moving to node is part of planning the tech that we're going to propose to our clients during the next 10 to 20 years. I didn't conduct a thorough analysis on the reasons why I've seen big corps rejecting Rails, so what I'm about to say is based on the the experience of being through all these projects. But most Rails projects are connected to the innovation departments and once they passed through the PoC stage, their IT departments asked for a re-write on a tech already in their ecosystem. Supporting additional techs raises complexity and forces them to support another stack. We were indeed able to push some Rails apps to production on enterprises, but these were usually apps that performed a specific goal for one of the departments, and once we went for the big projects within their core, tech stack was always an issue.

> Despite the great advantages of using Rails in a new project, there was an area where Ruby was not able to penetrate, and not even Rails was a good ambassador. I'm talking about the corporate world. There are of course some exceptions, and one can always point some successful corporate use cases where Ruby was adopted either for new projects or as a rewrite of existing ones in. But we're still to see a mass adoption of the technology by well established companies. There are several reasons for this, but this opinion was developed based only on gut feeling and I have no clear data to validate it. Thus, I'm not going to elaborate on the reasons why Ruby is not massively used on the corporate market. I found this paragraph really hard to grep given how vague it is, but I'm assuming that he's euphemistically saying that his team/company was either not interested or not able to learn the language/framework. That would have been a more interesting article to me if he'd expanded on that. If the team isn't interested in using some tech, then that's a sufficient reason itself to not use it. If they don't want to learn any language beyond what they're comfortable with, I'd be pretty concerned about that kind of culture, because it'll hurt them in the long-run. If the issue is actually that they can't deliver rails projects to clients because corporate people can't write ruby, then that's more important than any other reason given in the article.

tfranco 8y ago
I've been using Rails since 2008, and participated in more than 100 projects in these last 10 years. Either by coding or managing them. Most of these were Rails projects. Moving to node is part of planning the tech that we're going to propose to our clients during the next 10 to 20 years. I didn't conduct a thorough analysis on the reasons why I've seen big corps rejecting Rails, so what I'm about to say is based on the the experience of being through all these projects. But most Rails projects are connected to the innovation departments and once they passed through the PoC stage, their IT departments asked for a re-write on a tech already in their ecosystem. Supporting additional techs raises complexity and forces them to support another stack. We were indeed able to push some Rails apps to production on enterprises, but these were usually apps that performed a specific goal for one of the departments, and once we went for the big projects within their core, tech stack was always an issue.