[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Evidence that Functional Objects is real?
"Rob Myers" <robm@h2g2.com> wrote in message
3A0683C9.5D432F45@h2g2.com">news:3A0683C9.5D432F45@h2g2.com...
> Or if a plane crashes on the office... Risk management is part of any
> project.
Sure Rob, but if you're claiming that using Dylan isn't a much higher risk
than Java (for instance), I think you need to illustrate it a little better
than "any technology". For instance I can see no circumstances at all under
which a Java project would be put at risk in the same way, the
infrastructure is way to big.
No, I'm NOT saying that Java is a good language. But with Java I can pick
from a huge number of compilers, tools, debuggers etc., all of them
production quality. I can find Java programmers capable of an upgrade/bug
fix cycle practically anywhere. With Dylan I have to train programmers in
the language, find ones that want to work (we have people say no because of
the _Java_tools_ we use - not JSP? no way!) on it without feeling
marginalized, and have the ability to choose from one supported product and
one unsupported product.
Not the same at all.
> Java is hot, but imagine if MS dumped Java, didn't update the runtime,
> didn't implement new APIs in it, and didn't update their compiler. Oh,
> hang on... :-)
Exactly. And because Java is big, it had zero effect.
> I agree there's risk to using any technology, but no more so with Dylan
That sounds shockingly like appologizing.
Maury
Follow-Ups:
References: