Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If more people used LISP runtime systems, then the bugs would be found more readily. Thus leading to fewer defections from LISP to Blubs.



"positive network externalities:

http://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economics...

One of the reasons we try and convince other people to use our tools.


Not 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.


> 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.


My impression is most Rails developers are not C programmers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: