> Lähettäjä: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>
> Aihe: Re: [EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Ruby Helps?
>
> E S wrote:
> >>Lähettäjä: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>
> >>Aihe: Re: [EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Ruby Helps?
> >>
> >>Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >>[...] - (increased complexity, lost context)
> >>
> >>I'm sorry, I cannot continue the discussion.
> >>
> >>I just ask the community to point at least to an clear overview of the
> >>building-blocks which I can use within ruby.
> >>
> >>As stated in another message:
> >>
> >>"
> >>If i find e.g. 70% fo my requirements fulfilled within ruby, I would
> >>possibly start to implement the remaining 30%.
> >>
> >>But possibly I should split my requirements down into smaller chunks,
> >>and ask step by step.
> >>"
> >>
> >>-
> >>
> >>So, most possibly I have to go this way.
> >>
> >>Asking step by step.
> >
> > This may sound like a stupid idea, but since it seems that these tools
> > you crave for already exist in some form (even if they are proprietary
> > and/or expensive), would it be too much trouble for you to name one
> > for each 'frame' in your 'stack'?
>
> This is a very nice idea.
>
> But I cannot name them.
The tools exist but you can't name them? J'accuse.
> > For example: "I need a tool that can
> > create anything that I want (currently VaporStudio from Imagitasy can
> > do this)". This would help in giving you some concrete answers as it
> > could help explain what you want, exactly (your 'stack' is
> > ridiculously vague).
>
> I think the stack is very concise and precise.
>
> Another thing is, if it is imlementable.
>
> I will take the single-step-approach.
>
> Will open a new thread with the first part shortly.
>
> [If someone has answers to the full stack, they are of course welcome]
>
> > Secondly, and this may be just a language barrier issue, you come
> > across as either a troll or just hostile. Revising your tone (or
> > offering some other explanation) would probably help a lot.
>
> It's not a language barrier issue.
>
> I can change my [sterile, fact-oriented] writing-style.
>
> But I will not.
Nice. I think you're done here.
E