Tuesday, March 29, 2011
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Philip Hallstrom <philip@pjkh.com> wrote:
What I have done which was effective was give time and cost estimates for both .Net and Rails. In the first case I was even open to them picking .Net as for me I know that as long as I work agily and have good test coverage I will do well on any language/framework. But they were under time pressure and picked Rails, which gave me the chance to prove it to them. For most business managers if you go with some tangible bottom line figures you have a chance. Other than that like others say, they have swallowed the MS kool-aid and as with any other brainwashing, nothing you can really do to argue with :)
> So, you have a solid idea of what you want to accomplish. You know that
> by using Ruby on Rails and the core engines/plugins that will help
> manage your project, you will save your company money, time, and have a
> full test suite in place to counter development hitches.
>
> Before you are able to provide a complete proposal, a manager states in
> an email:
>
> .. we strongly encourage the use of Microsoft IIS and using a product in
> the .NET family for the code base..
>
> Given what you know about Ruby and Ruby on Rails, its ability to use
> LDAP, and that it can still function within a windows shop environment,
> how would you counter this argument? ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC - I can't
> stand them. I refuse to code in them.
>
> How would you approach a rebuttal on this topic?
What I have done which was effective was give time and cost estimates for both .Net and Rails. In the first case I was even open to them picking .Net as for me I know that as long as I work agily and have good test coverage I will do well on any language/framework. But they were under time pressure and picked Rails, which gave me the chance to prove it to them. For most business managers if you go with some tangible bottom line figures you have a chance. Other than that like others say, they have swallowed the MS kool-aid and as with any other brainwashing, nothing you can really do to argue with :)
IMHO you will never win with a technical rebuttal. It may well be that there's a corporate mandate or some other reason. Everyone jokes that "no one ever got fired for picking IBM/Microsoft" and while we agree that's a bad reason to pick them, it doesn't make it invalid (from their point of view).
What has worked for me is to put it all in terms of money, budget, and ROI. Run the numbers. If Ruby/Rails results in a quicker/cheaper implementation than .NET they should see the light. If they still refuse, they have other reasons and IMHO aren't likely to change their mind.
Good luck!
--
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.
--
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment