Ruby on Rails

Michael Pavling wrote in post #978365:
> On 28 January 2011 15:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser <lists@ruby-forum.com>
> 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
marnen@marnen.org

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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.