3 ms·

> the long term commitment should be there if you are going to let other people run their production systems on what you throw into the world If you adopted a

> the long term commitment should be there if you are going to let other people run their production systems on what you throw into the world If you adopted a language that is not mature for production, then you knew the risk when you made that choice. Innovation in PL happens with these small languages, and it's a good thing.

jacquesm 8y ago
> If you adopted a language that is not mature for production, then you knew the risk when you made that choice. True, but at the same time I can't help but think that a few hundred programming languages are all equally useful and all equally deserving of their continued existence. > Innovation in PL happens with these small languages, and it's a good thing. I do not see the author as having any beef whatsoever with 'small languages used for innovation', I think he has a beef with small languages that pretend to have staying power behind them when in fact they do not. Quite a bit of this stuff is people experimenting and making a 'me-too' version of something, and I have done this many times myself. But once you release a thing like that into the world you should be ready to step up and commit to it. If not then you might as well keep it to yourself.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  The best test of staying power would be longevity and engagement by a large community. If a new language lacks either it is obviously far more likely to cease to exist a few years from now. It's hard to pick unproven future winners fortunately you don't have to do this. Use what you know works.