On Oct 2, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Brian Mastenbrook wrote: > On 09/30/2011 02:07 PM, John Clements wrote: >> Racket is an experimental language (cf. Shriram's "hothouse"). We are >> *constantly* experimenting with the language, and on another level, >> we have a language that's designed to enable *your* language >> experiments. That's what makes it an exciting language to work with >> and on, and why it has design features that are still years away from >> appearing in mainstream languages. >> >> That's *also* the reason that you'll almost never see Racket used in >> industry. It's a language that doesn't compromise its ideals, and is >> constantly innovating, and if you're a business that's looking for a >> stable language with a broad supply of programmers, Racket would be >> an extremely surprising choice. > > I feel compelled to point out that there's a big difference between > "industry" as a whole and "business that's looking for a stable language with > a broad supply of programmers". Just as most businesses aren't the big > corporations everyone likes to rant about, not all (and maybe even not most?) > tech companies aren't big companies where it's acceptable to throw warm > bodies with a passable knowledge of Java or Python at a problem. Outside of > the large companies of the world, Racket's rapid evolution is not a problem > and not even a detriment. ...
It was not long ago that Java and Python were unacceptable for the same excuses that are now applied to Racket and any other 'new' alternative. What is next? rac _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
