On 28 January 2011 15:14, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: >>> If you were my client, and you responded "because I want it" when I >>> asked why a feature was of value to you, you wouldn't get the feature. >> >> Now *that's* customer service! :-) (but poor economics [1]) > > It's excellent customer service. My customers get exactly what they > want, and do not spend money on things they don't want.
Again, I think you're confusing needs and wants (and blurring it more with your interpretation of what they need). They can hardly "get what they *want*" if you also decide that they "wouldn't get the feature". Either way, it's academic, as how you manage your customer relations is up to you (but if they *really want* those features that you and I both know are pointless... if you don't want to do it, send them my way and I'll give them a quote for the work ;-) > The article you linked to is a red herring in this connection. If you > want something, you should still be able to explain *why* you want it, > not just "because I want it". Getting into psychology now... sometimes people *can't* justify their wants (or they just like something more for no particular reason). >> You often say a variation on this statement, and I never really >> understand what you mean: how can an IDE not "suit" Rails? > > <snip interesting answer> Interesting.. but largely personal preference [1]... what you see as "the primary benefits of conventional IDEs" is probably different to what others may list. Or maybe the using the term "IDE" is a red herring (as it may not mean the same to everyone), and really what I mean when I say IDE is "the editing software I use to write my apps". (to me, any software with features more then editing and saving plain-text files is starting on the road to IDE... some just "integrate" more features than others) > I'll turn the question around: what do you get out of using an IDE for > Rails, in terms of features that a decent editor wouldn't provide? I've already said - I want VCS and debugging integration. > NetBeans' Git plugin is fantastic. I just don't see it as fantastic > enough to saddle myself with the rest of the IDE. Whereas I think that the Mercurial plugin *is* fantastic enough to saddle myself with the rest of it... personal preference again! > BTW, even if NB is officially dumping Rails, couldn't you still use its > Ruby support? And don't you think someone is likely to take up > maintenance of the Rails tools? Probably, and probably. To a large degree, I don't really use the "Rails" features anyway. It just seems disappointing to be at the end of life for a product that's been getting better and better. To know it is never likely to get better still was just a spur to me to look around again (after using Netbeans for a couple of years, I've been using Rubymine for the last three days, and have some observations that I shall post separately) [1] I think we should all agree that we will *always* _know_ for certain that the choice we made for ourselves is the best. We should also know we'll *never* convince someone that made a different choice that we are right and that our choice is better for them than their choice. I refer to this Dilbert cartoon: http://bit.ly/hP9Bk1 :-) -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
