BaseJumpr has a fascinating service offering: they export your data from your Basecamp account, producing a set of files ready to import in to ActiveCollab, the open source Basecamp-sorta-clone-like-program. They then, if you wish to buy their hosting service, create an instance of ActiveCollab for you and import your data there. (They host your file storage on Amazon S3, so they can easily offer ample storage.)
I find this very appealing, yet also a bit impolite; 37Signals has built a good business on Basecamp, the ActiveCollab team has created (well, is creating) an open source clone, while BaseJumpr did neither of these things yet stands to gain (at 37s’s expense). However, I doubt BaseJumpr is a significant threat or bother to 37Signals because most users interested in the open source ActiveCollab would likely not be using the Basecamp service in the first place.
Speaking of Basecamp, I am fascinated by 37Signals’ business success with such a simple (but well executed) application. I tried out Basecamp myself, and found it far too feature-anemic for my taste; but I could readily see its appeal and simplicity, and it has me thinking about the merit of building a business in a focussed niche, intentionally and happily excluding the potential customers outside it.
Update in 2009: BaseJumpr doesn’t appear to exist any more. I am curious how it worked out.
On March 27th I gave a talk at the St. Louis Ruby User Group about Ruby GUI Toolkits. As with my last few talks, there were no slides, but rather a handout. The original handout fit tightly on a single, two-sided printed page; I’ve expanded the materials slightly and pasted them here.
I also recorded audio of the talk with my Olympus WS-100 digital voice recorder, then used Audacity to clean it up; Audacity’s “Remove Noise” feature worked surprisingly well. The recording lasts 1 hour 23 minutes, is 49 MB in size: RubyGUIToolkitTalk.mp3
A transcript of the talk is also available.
In the audio I mention screen shots and demos; you can find those at the respective toolkits’ web sites (linked below). I also briefly discuss and demo some code from a 2005 talk about Swing.
The handout contents follow below.
Continue reading “Ruby GUI Toolkit Talk: Notes and Audio”
When I starting with Python sometime in 2001, I was briefly frustrated by the intentation-as-block-structure syntax; but after a few weeks I found it natural. Its most obvious advantage is that it avoid the duplication between indentation and braces / keywords. Yet this kind of syntax has not become popular outside of Python.
Today I saw an interesting use of it “in the wild”: HAML, an HTML templating mechanism for Ruby on Rails. I haven’t used HAML (and may not, since at the moment we have only some sample projects using RoR, nothing in production), but from the tutorial it appears to be a very tight (indentation-based) syntax for HTML templating. I’ve encountered a Rubyist or two who disdains the Python syntax – I wonder if that similarity will limit HAML’s adoption.
I’ve been using Ruby sporadically for some time, including in a bit of production code (in which it is running well), but the apparent lack of progress toward a more modern VM for Ruby makes it harder to get more deeply involved. On the one hand, today’s Ruby interpreter/runtime is sufficiently good to build very successful services on (37Signal’s Rails-based services, for exampel); but in my own testing for the kinds of higher volume data handling I often need to do, it’s among the slowest I’d used. That matters little for populating a web page, but matters a lot for things like OLAP ETL.
So today I joined Geoffrey Grosenbach in supporting Evan Phoenix’s rubinius project, by sending $200 to help sponsor the work. It’s not much in the grand scheme of things, but I believe in “putting your money where your mouth is”.
This isn’t the first time I mentioned Geoff; earlier this year I took him to task for his choice of music for the Ruby on Rails podcast, which has changed since then to something more suitable.
Joel seems to “play it safe” … then goes off the deep end of irony in his final paragraph:
Fortunately DHH saved me some minutes of typing about it, with a scathing commentary.
Over at Oasis Digital we use both common tools (.NET, Java, PHP, C, Delphi, etc.) and more unusual ones (Lua, Prolog, Ruby, sorry no Lisp yet), so I believe that puts us in the DHH and Paul Graham camp: If you want to win, you must be willing to do something different from the pack… such as, in an extreme case, creating your own language optimized for the task at hand, whether in the form of Lisp macros or a C# compiler for Wasabi.
Over on defmacro today, a new article appeared: defmacro – Why Exotic Languages Are Not Mainstream in which the author laments that while there appear to be various choices to use Haskell on Windows, it turns out that all of them are, in some way, not ready for prime time… or even for effective hobbiest use.
I’ve noticed this myself, in my last few forays in to esoteric languages: the illusion of plenty of choices, runs in the the reality of no good choices. This is not a universal problem; I’ve had great results with Ruby, Python, and Lua, all of which are to some extent esoteric. The thing that those languages have in common is that there is at least one (and generally, only one) robust, production grade implementation with a community actively supporting it.
If you want to see your favorite language gain acceptance, spend your time creating / maintaining / vigorously supporting a production-ready implementation.