This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by James Britt. Original Post: Poop Heads with LAMP on the Brain Feed Title: James Britt: Ruby Development Feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/JamesBritt-Home Feed Description: James Britt: Playing with better toys Latest Ruby Buzz Posts Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by James Britt Latest Posts From James Britt: Ruby Development

I'm mostly in the LAMP Considered Harmful camp, but mainly because tool chice by acronym is cheesey rationale. IBM poop heads say LAMP users need to "grow up", by Ryan Tomayko, makes an good case for the strength of LAMP over the big vendor / big tools model.

The LAMP stack is a properly constructed piece of software. Features are added when an actual person has an actual need that arises in the actual field, not when some group of highly qualified architecture astronauts and marketing splash-seekers get together to compete for who can come up with the most grown-up piece of useless new crap to throw in the product.

 

The LAMP model works because it was built to work for and by people building real stuff. The big vendor / big tools model failed because it was built to work for Gartner, Forrester, and Upper Management whose idea of "work" turned out to be completely wrong.

And later:

The complexity for complexity mindset is the bane of a few potentially great technologies right now:

 

* Static vs. Dynamic Languages * J2EE vs. LAMP * WS-* vs HTTP

 

I like to complain when someone calls Python a scripting language because the connotation is that it is simple. But it is simple, right? So there shouldn't be any complaining. I'm not objecting to someone calling Python simple, I'm objecting to then saying that because it is simple, it must only be capable of simple things.