Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:10:55 +0000, language_fan thusly wrote: > You > may disagree, but I find it much more pleasant to find that the > application does never crash even though it works 15% slower than an > optimal C++ code would.
Imagine if a buggy C++ program was monitoring your health. If it crashed or corrupted data, you would die. Yes, the C++ code would be $1M cheaper to build and the hardware would also be $100K cheaper (overall $10M vs $8.9M), but people would die 95% more often. Or in banking business the systems would handle 4x as much customers and transactions, but unfortunately some transactions would just go to the bit heaven due to the 5-6 reboots the mainframe required daily.
