On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 06:21:54AM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote:
>  
>  Folks seem to so quickly forget that before Java came on the scene, most web
>  development was based on CGI, usually using Perl. The reason Java managed to
>  almost completely take over that space in a very short time is simple: it
>  was far, far more consumable than your average large-scale mid-90s
>  Perl-based web application. I had to maintain a few of those applications,
>  and man was it a boon to web development and Java (and others like PHP) came
>  along. Suddenly building web applications wasn't an exercise in pain (or at
>  least, not as much pain) and the explosion of applications going into 1999
>  and 2000 demonstrates that others felt the same way.

I disagree pretty strongly with that characterization.  Java didn't
really provide much of anything in terms of benefits for web development
over Perl/CGI.  Perl/CGI is far more accessible to beginners, both as a
programming toolset and in terms of what's available at common shared
hosting providers; Java applets suck; Perl/CGI is more portable (despite
the Java portability marketing); early server-side Java was a bit like a
spork in the eye in terms of performance and ease of deployment.

The real driver of Java success as a Web programming language was simply
Sun marketing.  Paul Graham has suggested that the first step to
choosing the right tool for the job is usually to stand as far back from
the industry practices as possible, far enough back so that the only
thing you see is the big flashing neon sign for whatever toolset gets
the most hype, and discard that: in the case of web development, that
was Java for a long time.  The fact Java had that big flashing neon
sign, however, suckered a heck of a lot of people into thinking it's the
only language worth using for web development.  *That* is the real
reason Java gained as much traction in the web development sphere as it
did.

I, for one, have never found Perl/CGI development to be painful at all.
Looking at Java web programming code that has about a 30:1 weight ratio
as compared with Perl/CGI code, however, does tend to make the brain
smart a bit.


>  
>  I think the business motivation for these big players to buy into Ruby is
>  simple: backing Ruby, funding Ruby projects, and building Ruby domain
>  expertise will help further the language that is (in my opinion) most likely
>  to increase demand for the software, hardware, and services that come along
>  with a really smashing development boom. If any one of those companies could
>  claim expertise in Ruby, support for running Ruby in concert with their
>  software and hardware solutions, and services for helping advance Ruby,
>  build Ruby applications, and support Ruby development work...they'd be
>  betting on a pretty solid horse.

I don't know that Ruby is the "most likely", but it certainly seems to
be in the top five, and any language in that short list is pretty nearly
equivalent to the others for these purposes at this point in time.  Luck
will play a large part in determining what languages end up getting
adopted as the "next big thing", but so too does stuff like a critical
mass of interested developers, books on the shelves of bookstores, and
good business models behind the languages (or, at least, divorcement of
the language's potential success from any bad business models).


>  
>  Beyond that, assuming this whole Ruby thing pans out, there's the spoils of
>  early adoption to be reaped. In 3 years, if Ruby is truly the big ticket
>  that Java has become, and if (for example) Sun can claim they've been a Ruby
>  backer all that time, people are going to be much more likely to trust that
>  Sun software, Sun services, and Sun hardware are the most Ruby-friendly on
>  the market. Google has captured mindshare these days because of that exact
>  situation: they figured shit out first, and now everyone else is playing
>  catch-up. All the other companies you listed are suffering from a serious
>  "boring" complex, afraid to bank on anything but their tried-and-true
>  stand-bys. If one of them were to break ranks and bet on Ruby...things would
>  get seriously interesting.

They might get that way, anyway.  I see a lot of very successful (so
far) startups leveraging Ruby to good effect, both technically and in
terms of business concerns.  We may well see a Java-equivalent marketing
bonanza arising semi-organically from a seething mass of small, "hip",
dynamic business efforts rather than a single, monolithic, 900 pound
gorilla corporate entity.  If I had my druthers, that's how it would
happen.  I'd like to see a few 900 pound gorillas forced onto some
pretty strict diets.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990