4 ms·
All good points. Even though it's hard to find any flaw in "Use the right tool for the job", I still think that the success of a start up in Silicon Valley (an
by incepted 11y ago
All good points.
Even though it's hard to find any flaw in "Use the right tool for the job", I still think that the success of a start up in Silicon Valley (and probably the rest of the world) has a lot less to do with the technical choices of the company than the people who work there. And luck. A lot of luck.
It's still baffling to me that pg doesn't realize how lucky he was. He was in the right place at the right time and he was probably surrounded by competent technical and non technical people. If you have such a team, the technical preferences of the engineers will probably have very little bearing on the success of the company as long as they use the tools they are proficient with and which allow them to execute quickly.
I mean, the fact that Rails and PHP were at the origin of Twitter and Facebook alone shows that the quality of programming languages is irrelevant for the early year(s) of a start up.
- fleitz 11y agowhere are the assembler startups if more powerful languages don't give benefits?
- incepted 11y agoWhere did I say that more powerful languages don't give benefits? Besides, assembly fails the "allows to execute quickly" test.
- fleitz 11y agoRuby has very similar expressive power to LISP... I'm pretty sure that what PG was trying to say was that given two languages X and Y that if X is more powerful (expressive) than Y it will be better for startups. Not that if you don't use X there is no way your startup will be successful, and certainly not that if you don't use LISP you won't be successful.