On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Nick Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well now wait a minute. I'm not in favor of a fork, but I'm not sure > I agree with this logic. First, what size of a company are you > talking about a CTO for? IBM or Google? Or a small startup? The > former are going to be more conservative and slower to change simply > because they have a large investment in today's Java. But a smaller, > newer company isn't going to have that same investment, and will > likely need a place to gain an advantage over their bigger > competition, and a better platform could be a way to provide that > advantage. They are mainly going to be the ones to adopt a fork (or > more likely, a new JVM-based language like Scala or Clojure), so it > makes no sense to deride an idea simply because large companies won't > be willing to switch to it. > I don't think the size of the company matters. Even if it's just two people, would you bet the entire future of your company on a language that's six months old and backed up by a vague open source movement? What guarantee do you have that the fork will be maintained, that bugs will get fixed, that new features will be implemented, that performance will keep improving, etc...? -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
