4 ms·
If more people used LISP runtime systems, then the bugs would be found more readily. Thus leading to fewer defections from LISP to Blubs.
by Kaizyn 19y ago
If more people used LISP runtime systems, then the bugs would be found more readily. Thus leading to fewer defections from LISP to Blubs.
- shadowplay 19y agoNot necessarily -- some organizations would patch it themselves in a private branch just to maintain an edge, assuming they have the expertise in-house. I've done this before with GPLed libraries. That's assuming you can even track down the problem -- Vendetta Online couldn't pin it down well enough to submit a coherent bug report (in fairness, SBCL is a monstrosity; just as a comparison, how many Rails developers could track down CRuby bugs?). I wouldn't call Erlang and Python Blubs.
- dfranke 19y ago> how many Rails developers could track down CRuby bugs? Probably a lot of them, if they tried. Because Ruby is so poorly specified, I frequently read the interpreter source code to figure out how things are supposed to behave. CRuby is really well-written in some ways and really poorly-written in others. It's poorly written in the sense that it's a painfully slow line-by-line interpreter. It's well written in the sense that the code is very clean and well-organized: I can usually find answers in the source faster than I can find answers in the pick-axe book.
- shadowplay 19y agoMy impression is most Rails developers are not C programmers.
- davidw 19y ago"positive network externalities: http://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economics.html http://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economics... One of the reasons we try and convince other people to use our tools.