[rails-business] Building the business case for Rails (meeting is tomorrow any help greatly appreciated ;-)
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Jonathan Kinney
Apr 22, 2010, 6:33:49 PM4/22/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Hello everyone,
The company I work for is at a junction in the road and I need your
insight to help me steer them down The Rails Way (don't sue me Obie
;-).
The story is that I brought a quite large and profitable client with
me when I got hired at my current company and we've been developing a
solid phase 2 of the product for the last 6-8 months or so in Rails
2.3.5 deployed to OpenSUSE 11 with a MSSQL 05 backend. Everything has
gone well, it's very profitable, the client is happy, my managers are
happy and the owner (who happens to be the sales person on this
particular client) is delighted as well. But except for this one rails
app (and a few Radiant sites I managed to finagle into our web team's
pipeline) our applications team is entirely .NET based. They do a lot
of ASP.NET 2.0 web forms stuff with C# and VB, and more recently have
started doing a few projects in .NET MVC using C#.
The question my manager has for me is why should I make the investment
in Rails. And though no one has come out and said this, I think the
implication is... "when .NET MVC is good enough and we're already
setup to go that route". It's a pretty simple question, and any good
business person should always ask why... heck we make clients tell us
why a thousand times when we're building cucumber scenarios. New
things need to provide business value, a new technology should be no
different.
Things they're concerned about are: training the workforce in another
technology, building out the infrastructure to support development and
staging environments, and the overall "demand" for Rails work in
addition to the tech's staying power. The first thing I'm always asked
by a manager who I approach asking to invest in Rails as a core
competency is "how do I know when to pick Rails vs .NET?" The hard
thing is that since I like Rails and it can work for nearly anything,
I usually say I'd pick it 90% of the time. But since they're so
established with .NET and they like it so much they usually think .NET
90% of the time and only if the client requests open source or
deployment to Linux would they ever consider anything else. Are there
any objective criteria for this decision? Telling someone to pick
Rails because it's better just alienates what they've been doing to
run a successful business thus far. So HOW do I tell them Rails is
better? Unfortunately except for me, there isn't a ton of developer
interest in putting forth the effort to learn something new on their
own time (I've been coding Rails since 2006 so that isn't a concern
for me), and since we're a consulting shop everyone is always worried
about keeping their billables up.
With regard to "selling Rails" I think a lot of managers look at that
wrong. You don't necessarily always have to sell Rails, you just need
to pick it! Correct me if I'm wrong but 90% of clients don't come in
with technical requirements with regard to the web framework used to
build their tool. Sometimes they have deployment criteria like Windows
or Linux, but with IronRuby that could be less of an issue now. I
think usually they just want it done as quickly and flexibly as
possible, especially when it's being hosted at the shop that develops
the app. I think that is where Rails wins out every time
(speed/flexibility). But how do you articulate that in essentially a
Rails vs .NET MVC debate? Do I lean on Cucumber and rSpec and BDD in
general? Or the dynamic nature of Ruby lending itself better to
building flexible web applications than a static language like C#?
Even if those points are excellent and developers love Ruby/Rails/BDD
more, how do you show that they are more profitable? What's the
business case? The "I like it better" answer ALWAYS falls on deaf ears
(because they like their current way better, usually).
There is an interesting article by Scott Bellware
(http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sound.html)
on IronRuby and .NET MVC and Rails, etc. It feels a bit
lengthy/preachy to forward directly to my managers, but perhaps I'll
pull some insight from that.
Does anyone else have any insight or magic words that seem to make
tentative managers see Rails in a positive light? Are there any case
studies that literally build the same app with the 2 different
frameworks and showcase the advantages/disadvantages of both
technologies?
Thank you very much for any input!
-Jon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails meets the business world" group.
To post to this group, send email to rails-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rails-busines...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-business?hl=en.
The company I work for is at a junction in the road and I need your
insight to help me steer them down The Rails Way (don't sue me Obie
;-).
The story is that I brought a quite large and profitable client with
me when I got hired at my current company and we've been developing a
solid phase 2 of the product for the last 6-8 months or so in Rails
2.3.5 deployed to OpenSUSE 11 with a MSSQL 05 backend. Everything has
gone well, it's very profitable, the client is happy, my managers are
happy and the owner (who happens to be the sales person on this
particular client) is delighted as well. But except for this one rails
app (and a few Radiant sites I managed to finagle into our web team's
pipeline) our applications team is entirely .NET based. They do a lot
of ASP.NET 2.0 web forms stuff with C# and VB, and more recently have
started doing a few projects in .NET MVC using C#.
The question my manager has for me is why should I make the investment
in Rails. And though no one has come out and said this, I think the
implication is... "when .NET MVC is good enough and we're already
setup to go that route". It's a pretty simple question, and any good
business person should always ask why... heck we make clients tell us
why a thousand times when we're building cucumber scenarios. New
things need to provide business value, a new technology should be no
different.
Things they're concerned about are: training the workforce in another
technology, building out the infrastructure to support development and
staging environments, and the overall "demand" for Rails work in
addition to the tech's staying power. The first thing I'm always asked
by a manager who I approach asking to invest in Rails as a core
competency is "how do I know when to pick Rails vs .NET?" The hard
thing is that since I like Rails and it can work for nearly anything,
I usually say I'd pick it 90% of the time. But since they're so
established with .NET and they like it so much they usually think .NET
90% of the time and only if the client requests open source or
deployment to Linux would they ever consider anything else. Are there
any objective criteria for this decision? Telling someone to pick
Rails because it's better just alienates what they've been doing to
run a successful business thus far. So HOW do I tell them Rails is
better? Unfortunately except for me, there isn't a ton of developer
interest in putting forth the effort to learn something new on their
own time (I've been coding Rails since 2006 so that isn't a concern
for me), and since we're a consulting shop everyone is always worried
about keeping their billables up.
With regard to "selling Rails" I think a lot of managers look at that
wrong. You don't necessarily always have to sell Rails, you just need
to pick it! Correct me if I'm wrong but 90% of clients don't come in
with technical requirements with regard to the web framework used to
build their tool. Sometimes they have deployment criteria like Windows
or Linux, but with IronRuby that could be less of an issue now. I
think usually they just want it done as quickly and flexibly as
possible, especially when it's being hosted at the shop that develops
the app. I think that is where Rails wins out every time
(speed/flexibility). But how do you articulate that in essentially a
Rails vs .NET MVC debate? Do I lean on Cucumber and rSpec and BDD in
general? Or the dynamic nature of Ruby lending itself better to
building flexible web applications than a static language like C#?
Even if those points are excellent and developers love Ruby/Rails/BDD
more, how do you show that they are more profitable? What's the
business case? The "I like it better" answer ALWAYS falls on deaf ears
(because they like their current way better, usually).
There is an interesting article by Scott Bellware
(http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sound.html)
on IronRuby and .NET MVC and Rails, etc. It feels a bit
lengthy/preachy to forward directly to my managers, but perhaps I'll
pull some insight from that.
Does anyone else have any insight or magic words that seem to make
tentative managers see Rails in a positive light? Are there any case
studies that literally build the same app with the 2 different
frameworks and showcase the advantages/disadvantages of both
technologies?
Thank you very much for any input!
-Jon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails meets the business world" group.
To post to this group, send email to rails-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rails-busines...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-business?hl=en.
Philip Hallstrom
Apr 22, 2010, 6:51:17 PM4/22/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
> Does anyone else have any insight or magic words that seem to make
> tentative managers see Rails in a positive light? Are there any case
> studies that literally build the same app with the 2 different
> frameworks and showcase the advantages/disadvantages of both
> technologies?
It sounds to me like you are trying to sell Rails to a company that
> tentative managers see Rails in a positive light? Are there any case
> studies that literally build the same app with the 2 different
> frameworks and showcase the advantages/disadvantages of both
> technologies?
is .net-centric and has been successful with that model. Based on
technical merits, you're going to lose your case. There is nothing
that you can show them to convince them they should switch -- and they
have some very powerful data showing that .net works just fine.
Consider for a moment that it's not Rails. Pick something you don't
love. PHP. Python. Java. For that matter, let's pretend your
a .NET fan and have moved into a Rails shop. How would you convince
them .NET is better?
If it were me, I would look to business/market reasons for a reason to
bring Rails into the company. Sure, .NET is working for them now, but
how much work are they missing out on because they don't know Rails?
How much more profitable could they be if they could provide both?
What about the whole "eggs in one basket" issue -- in a couple of
years when the year of the linux desktop finally comes about, duke
nukem is released, and microsoft is split up into tiny little pieces
and .NET is gone... what then? Knowing Rails (or Python, Java, PHP,
the-next-big-thing) will be very valuable.
That all said, I've never used .NET. Maybe it sucks. Maybe it takes
10 times as long do write Hello World as it does in Rails. If that's
the case, definitely point that out. But your arguments should all be
centered around profit and ROI. Management doesn't care about RSpec,
Cucumber, etc.
Good luck!
-philip
Obie Fernandez
Apr 22, 2010, 9:10:43 PM4/22/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
The money quote from Scott Bellware's article:
While ASP .NET MVC has made significant progress in the past two years, it progresses at a snail's pace. We can contrast ASP .NET MVC's technology to Rails' technology, but this is the typical mistake that .NET developers make when trying to compare ASP .NET MVC to Rails because ASP .NET MVC doesn't have a whole ecosystem on the magnitude of the Rails ecosystem. This ecosystem includes not only the core framework technology itself, but the vast number and quality of plugins and packages for Rails (including those built for general Ruby development), the integrations with value-add services for both web businesses and web infrastructure, the vast array of hosting options and architectures, and the brain trust residing in the Ruby and Rails community.
Mark Turner
Apr 22, 2010, 11:07:09 PM4/22/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, April 22, 2010, Obie Fernandez <obiefe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The money quote from Scott Bellware's article:
>
>
> While ASP .NET MVC has made significant progress in the past two years, it progresses at a snail's pace. We can contrast ASP .NET MVC's technology to Rails' technology, but this is the typical mistake that .NET developers make when trying to compare ASP .NET MVC to Rails because ASP .NET MVC doesn't have a whole ecosystem on the magnitude of the Rails ecosystem. This ecosystem includes not only the core framework technology itself, but the vast number and quality of plugins and packages for Rails (including those built for general Ruby development), the integrations with value-add services for both web businesses and web infrastructure, the vast array of hosting options and architectures, and the brain trust residing in the Ruby and Rails community.
>
>
>
#lazy request
> The money quote from Scott Bellware's article:
>
>
> While ASP .NET MVC has made significant progress in the past two years, it progresses at a snail's pace. We can contrast ASP .NET MVC's technology to Rails' technology, but this is the typical mistake that .NET developers make when trying to compare ASP .NET MVC to Rails because ASP .NET MVC doesn't have a whole ecosystem on the magnitude of the Rails ecosystem. This ecosystem includes not only the core framework technology itself, but the vast number and quality of plugins and packages for Rails (including those built for general Ruby development), the integrations with value-add services for both web businesses and web infrastructure, the vast array of hosting options and architectures, and the brain trust residing in the Ruby and Rails community.
>
>
>
Do you have a link to that article?
Mark Turner :: ma...@amerine.net :: @amerine
Jonathan Kinney
Apr 22, 2010, 11:16:16 PM4/22/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Hey Mark, it was in my original ramblings:
http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sound.html
Thanks,
-Jon
http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sound.html
Thanks,
-Jon
Mark Turner
Apr 22, 2010, 11:24:13 PM4/22/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, April 22, 2010, Jonathan Kinney <jonk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Mark, it was in my original ramblings:
> http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sound.html
>
> Thanks,
> -Jon
Ahh yeah I had that in another window when I saw the link. Then I read
> Hey Mark, it was in my original ramblings:
> http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sound.html
>
> Thanks,
> -Jon
the rest of the thread. IPad fail! Thanks again for the link.
Ken Mayer
Apr 23, 2010, 3:44:14 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Does this white paper (still?) have any relevance? Its certainly good material for people new to the RoR space.
Jonathan Kinney
Apr 23, 2010, 4:28:42 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
I forgot about that one Ken, thanks!
Paul Doerwald
Apr 23, 2010, 6:44:51 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
I love Ruby and Rails as much as the next guy, but it sounds to me like your company doesn't have a particularly compelling case to go with Ruby. They have a bunch of trained, experienced .NET people. Also, from what I've seen ASP.NET MVC is actually a pretty good environment.
Paul.
Paul.
Chad Pytel
Apr 23, 2010, 7:56:19 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Jonathan,
I agree with Phillip's response.
All that being said, is this then an argument that you want to have to have? Do you want to have to justify and argue your case for something that you want to do?
There are plenty of companies already "making the investment in Rails". If you feel strongly enough about Rails that you want to fight to use it, maybe you should instead use that energy to find a job at one of them?
This again is something your management might understand: losing top talent because of their technology choice will eventually affect their bottom line. Maybe you just shouldn't stick around for them to wait to be convinced.
-Chad
---
Chad Pytel, Founder and CEO
thoughtbot, inc.
t: 617-482-1300 x113
f: 866-217-5992
http://www.thoughtbot.com
http://www.twitter.com/thoughtbot
I agree with Phillip's response.
All that being said, is this then an argument that you want to have to have? Do you want to have to justify and argue your case for something that you want to do?
There are plenty of companies already "making the investment in Rails". If you feel strongly enough about Rails that you want to fight to use it, maybe you should instead use that energy to find a job at one of them?
This again is something your management might understand: losing top talent because of their technology choice will eventually affect their bottom line. Maybe you just shouldn't stick around for them to wait to be convinced.
-Chad
Chad Pytel, Founder and CEO
thoughtbot, inc.
t: 617-482-1300 x113
f: 866-217-5992
http://www.thoughtbot.com
http://www.twitter.com/thoughtbot
Obie Fernandez
Apr 23, 2010, 9:16:09 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
+1 ... was thinking this earlier but didn't want to be the asshole to say it ;-)
Paul Doerwald
Apr 23, 2010, 9:26:02 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Heh. Me neither. :-)
+1
+1
Jonathan Kinney
Apr 23, 2010, 9:53:28 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
My dream job is working for a company like Hashrocket or Pivotal Labs,
but as that is unlikely to happen (unless you all consider remote
candidates now) I'm trying to further the technology I love with the
best job I could find in my current area of residence.
When I made the move up to the Green Bay, WI area I looked long and
hard for any semblance of a company using Rails (at all) and there
just wasn't one. Luckily I was able to bring a large client with me to
my current job so that I can even pose this opportunity to the
company. So while this is a good thought in theory, and if they flat
out say they won't do Rails I'll probably polish up the ol' resume and
start hunting again, I can't just go where the Rails jobs are unless I
move my family, house and wife's career to a completely different
city. I've actually considered doing just that (maybe the Twin Cities
area in MN), but we just got settled up here and purchased our first
home, etc.
I've considered doing the independent thing, I think I'd really like
it, but my wife has had a few run-ins with melanoma and we just simply
can't be without health insurance. She'll be staying home with the
kids in about 2 years when that whole part of my life rolls around so
relying on her for insurance is probably unwise.
So I'd be ALL ears if you know of any of these companies that are
already "making the investment" up in my area!
Thanks,
-Jon
but as that is unlikely to happen (unless you all consider remote
candidates now) I'm trying to further the technology I love with the
best job I could find in my current area of residence.
When I made the move up to the Green Bay, WI area I looked long and
hard for any semblance of a company using Rails (at all) and there
just wasn't one. Luckily I was able to bring a large client with me to
my current job so that I can even pose this opportunity to the
company. So while this is a good thought in theory, and if they flat
out say they won't do Rails I'll probably polish up the ol' resume and
start hunting again, I can't just go where the Rails jobs are unless I
move my family, house and wife's career to a completely different
city. I've actually considered doing just that (maybe the Twin Cities
area in MN), but we just got settled up here and purchased our first
home, etc.
I've considered doing the independent thing, I think I'd really like
it, but my wife has had a few run-ins with melanoma and we just simply
can't be without health insurance. She'll be staying home with the
kids in about 2 years when that whole part of my life rolls around so
relying on her for insurance is probably unwise.
So I'd be ALL ears if you know of any of these companies that are
already "making the investment" up in my area!
Thanks,
-Jon
Karthik Hariharan
Apr 23, 2010, 9:11:30 AM4/23/10
to Ruby on Rails meets the business world
I'm a current .NET developer and I'm pretty involved in that
community. However I'm looking more closely into Rails and I'm
currently in the process of trying to launch my first site on
Rails.Scott Bellware's post really resonated with me and there are
some really good points he makes.
I've done some work in ASP.NET MVC, and while it is a refreshing look
at the platform, it is not gaining enough momentum with the
mainstream .NET developer community for me to make any long term bets
on it. If Microsoft had completely abandoned WebForms and gone all in
with MVC, I'd feel better about it. However, Microsoft appears to be
focusing their base (the corporate developer) into WPF and Silverlight
technologies on the thick client. The existing WebForms/Winforms event
model that many devs have more than a decade learning appears to
translate better to these thick client technologies.
What this means for a business owner, is that just because someone
knows .NET, it doesn't mean they'll make a good ASP.NET MVC developer.
A solid ex-Java developer or a competent Web developer would quickly
lap a "Senior .NET developer" that has never worked with the ASP.NET
MVC framework. I have some first hand experience with this exact
situation in my current company.
This makes the decision a fairly difficult one. If you move forward on
Rails, I suspect less than half of your existing workforce will be
able to make the switch. To really grok Rails, they'd have to get
comfortable with Javascript, using an ORM, learning Ruby, and picking
up some Unix skills. Thats a very steep hill to climb for the
average .NET developer.
But if you're making long term bets on the Web, Microsoft may not be
the best choice as it's still unclear where their strengths will lie
in the future. Many .NET shops that have made big bets on the web may
face a lot of tough decisions in the coming years.
Good luck and let us know how it goes!
Thanks,
Karthik Hariharan
community. However I'm looking more closely into Rails and I'm
currently in the process of trying to launch my first site on
Rails.Scott Bellware's post really resonated with me and there are
some really good points he makes.
I've done some work in ASP.NET MVC, and while it is a refreshing look
at the platform, it is not gaining enough momentum with the
mainstream .NET developer community for me to make any long term bets
on it. If Microsoft had completely abandoned WebForms and gone all in
with MVC, I'd feel better about it. However, Microsoft appears to be
focusing their base (the corporate developer) into WPF and Silverlight
technologies on the thick client. The existing WebForms/Winforms event
model that many devs have more than a decade learning appears to
translate better to these thick client technologies.
What this means for a business owner, is that just because someone
knows .NET, it doesn't mean they'll make a good ASP.NET MVC developer.
A solid ex-Java developer or a competent Web developer would quickly
lap a "Senior .NET developer" that has never worked with the ASP.NET
MVC framework. I have some first hand experience with this exact
situation in my current company.
This makes the decision a fairly difficult one. If you move forward on
Rails, I suspect less than half of your existing workforce will be
able to make the switch. To really grok Rails, they'd have to get
comfortable with Javascript, using an ORM, learning Ruby, and picking
up some Unix skills. Thats a very steep hill to climb for the
average .NET developer.
But if you're making long term bets on the Web, Microsoft may not be
the best choice as it's still unclear where their strengths will lie
in the future. Many .NET shops that have made big bets on the web may
face a lot of tough decisions in the coming years.
Good luck and let us know how it goes!
Thanks,
Karthik Hariharan
Anuj Dutta
Apr 23, 2010, 10:00:03 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
On 23 April 2010 19:23, Jonathan Kinney <jonk...@gmail.com> wrote:
My dream job is working for a company like Hashrocket or Pivotal Labs,
but as that is unlikely to happen (unless you all consider remote
candidates now) I'm trying to further the technology I love with the
best job I could find in my current area of residence.
You forgot to mention Thoughtbot (Chad Pytel from thoughtbot was here).
Just kidding :o)
Anuj
@andHapp
--
Anuj DUTTA
Anuj Dutta
Apr 23, 2010, 9:55:43 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Does no one think that the money invested in buying licenses to run .NET stack can be used for Rails training? Apologies, if someone has already mentioned it. I have worked at such a company. They were hell-bent on going the .NET way and their argument was "Rails can't scale" and all other such baseless points. But the company was buying 20-30 SQL licenses, server licenses and yeah licenses for Visual Studios.
Having said that, I would still encourage you to go and find a like-minded bunch of developers. Chad summed it up nicely - "Concentrate your energies somewhere else."
Anuj
@andhapp--
Anuj DUTTA
Having said that, I would still encourage you to go and find a like-minded bunch of developers. Chad summed it up nicely - "Concentrate your energies somewhere else."
Anuj
@andhapp
Anuj DUTTA
Jon Kinney
Apr 23, 2010, 10:52:56 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
I'd of course welcome a remote position at Thoughtbot too! Hah. I do love factory_girl and Pacecar. ;)
-Jon
Sent from my iPhone
Philip Hallstrom
Apr 23, 2010, 11:31:36 AM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
> I've considered doing the independent thing, I think I'd really like
> it, but my wife has had a few run-ins with melanoma and we just simply
> can't be without health insurance. She'll be staying home with the
> kids in about 2 years when that whole part of my life rolls around so
> relying on her for insurance is probably unwise.
If you consider this route further, simply count insurance as a part
> it, but my wife has had a few run-ins with melanoma and we just simply
> can't be without health insurance. She'll be staying home with the
> kids in about 2 years when that whole part of my life rolls around so
> relying on her for insurance is probably unwise.
of doing business. Like rent. Or the purchasing of new equipment.
Once you factor it into your rates, it's a non issue. It does happen
to be, by far, your largest expense (especially if you work from
home), but it's an expense like any other.
Now.. all that said, and not knowing the extent of your wife's issues,
the stress from needing to "do it all yourself" might not be worth it.
Good luck in whatever you do!
Brian Hogan
Apr 23, 2010, 5:57:21 PM4/23/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
On topic:
It's not about the technology - it's about what you can do with it. ASP.Net MVC makes web apps and so does Rails. It's an uphill battle, and I understand you want to make your current place of employment more enjoyable. It is important to stress the amount of difference in time frames for projects. I got to do Ruby as a day job because I was already able to show I was successful with it elsewhere, and I was able to take existing projects and show how they can be done quicker in Rails.
But, you need it to come from another source. Someone else they trust needs to recommend it to them. I don't know how you tap into that. I do think that IronRuby is your foot in the door though because you can level the playing field a bit. Do the Manning book's ASP.Net MVC, and then do the Rails chapter.
Rails isn't better than .net MVC on the surface. But it's not difficult to show that it is currently one of the best ways to quickly build stable, scalable applications. Cucumber, RSpec, they don't mean a thing.. until you show your bosses that you did the same thing your .net devs are doing in half the time, but you *also* have unit tests and Cucumber stories that you can show prove your app works like it should. That's the ROI. But it does take a company a LONG time to get there. You don't learn to be a good Rails dev overnight, and if will fail if the dev staff doesn't wanna play along.
Off topic - Jon is an excellent developer. He'd be an absolutely fabulous candidate for a remote developer position, or a regular development posiion. If I were in a position to hire a Rails developer, I'd hire him. I've had the pleasure of working with him on a remote gig and he knows his stuff - not just in Rails, but also just as a developer. Good with clients, good at getting in and understanding problem domains.
It's not about the technology - it's about what you can do with it. ASP.Net MVC makes web apps and so does Rails. It's an uphill battle, and I understand you want to make your current place of employment more enjoyable. It is important to stress the amount of difference in time frames for projects. I got to do Ruby as a day job because I was already able to show I was successful with it elsewhere, and I was able to take existing projects and show how they can be done quicker in Rails.
But, you need it to come from another source. Someone else they trust needs to recommend it to them. I don't know how you tap into that. I do think that IronRuby is your foot in the door though because you can level the playing field a bit. Do the Manning book's ASP.Net MVC, and then do the Rails chapter.
Rails isn't better than .net MVC on the surface. But it's not difficult to show that it is currently one of the best ways to quickly build stable, scalable applications. Cucumber, RSpec, they don't mean a thing.. until you show your bosses that you did the same thing your .net devs are doing in half the time, but you *also* have unit tests and Cucumber stories that you can show prove your app works like it should. That's the ROI. But it does take a company a LONG time to get there. You don't learn to be a good Rails dev overnight, and if will fail if the dev staff doesn't wanna play along.
Off topic - Jon is an excellent developer. He'd be an absolutely fabulous candidate for a remote developer position, or a regular development posiion. If I were in a position to hire a Rails developer, I'd hire him. I've had the pleasure of working with him on a remote gig and he knows his stuff - not just in Rails, but also just as a developer. Good with clients, good at getting in and understanding problem domains.
Jonathan Kinney
Apr 25, 2010, 9:21:48 PM4/25/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Thank you everyone for responding! There was a lot of good insight in
each response and I truly appreciate the time each one of you took to
respond. My manager and the owner had their meeting on Friday but I
have yet to hear how it went. Hopefully I'll have good news to report
on the situation next week.
Thanks again,
Jon Kinney
http://jonkinney.com
Twitter: @j2fly
each response and I truly appreciate the time each one of you took to
respond. My manager and the owner had their meeting on Friday but I
have yet to hear how it went. Hopefully I'll have good news to report
on the situation next week.
Thanks again,
Jon Kinney
http://jonkinney.com
Twitter: @j2fly
Kris
Jun 2, 2010, 6:20:38 AM6/2/10
to Ruby on Rails meets the business world
End results with Rails, .NET and anything else are the same; HTML
pages. They are all assumed to be proven, secure and robust. The
differences are in cost of raw materials (licenses) and labour
(productivity). I've never used .NET so can't comment on specifics but
Windows Sever + IDE + SQLServer must be fairly expensive. You could
also play on the security issues with Windows, however it might be
unfair to do so.
My Rails Top Points
* No license costs for IDE, OS, Platform, Database
* EcoSystem - plugins, libraries, tools
* Supported by the masses (stackoverflow etc.)
- Kris
> (http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sou...)
pages. They are all assumed to be proven, secure and robust. The
differences are in cost of raw materials (licenses) and labour
(productivity). I've never used .NET so can't comment on specifics but
Windows Sever + IDE + SQLServer must be fairly expensive. You could
also play on the security issues with Windows, however it might be
unfair to do so.
My Rails Top Points
* No license costs for IDE, OS, Platform, Database
* EcoSystem - plugins, libraries, tools
* Supported by the masses (stackoverflow etc.)
- Kris
Kris
Jun 4, 2010, 7:42:47 AM6/4/10
to Ruby on Rails meets the business world
Too late for your meeting, but this might be useful for future finders
of this thread...
http://www.infoq.com/articles/architecting-tekpub
So how did your meeting go Jon?
> (http://blog.scottbellware.com/2010/04/ironruby-drops-does-it-make-sou...)
of this thread...
http://www.infoq.com/articles/architecting-tekpub
So how did your meeting go Jon?
Jon Kinney
Jun 4, 2010, 8:59:35 AM6/4/10
to rails-b...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the article Kris, hopefully it can help others that stumble across the thread later.
As for the meeting... well, I'm actually now a happy employee at Intridea :-) Even though my project went well at my former employer and it was profitable, etc... it was, as I mentioned, their only Ruby/Rails project and they apparently didn't see enough of a demand for Rails work in the area to pursue it as a core competency for their staff. Despite my efforts, they never really looked at Rails closely enough to make a proper decision as to whether or not to pursue it moving forward and used the fact that customers weren't banging down their door asking for it as a pass on the tech. I still have some friends there and I wish them all the best and hopefully they can make .NET work for them in the long haul. It certainly has done fine for them up until now, it just wasn't where I wanted to be in my career.
Have a great day!
-Jon
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages