[dkarapetyan]

I think you're making the case for language irrelevance even more. The reason big corp. can't move fast isn't because of their technology choices. It is because of all the bloatware and bureaucracy. You can be bureaucratic and bloated in any language.

[backlava]

But in some languages bloat is a best practice.

[bbcbasic]

It's all about how many adjectives you can get into your class name. e.g.

   SingletonFactoryAdaptorFacadeProviderEnumerator<BridgeAbstractFactory2_Hack> myClass;

With Haskell it is about how big your monad stack is

    StateT ReaderT WriterT LensifierT MaybeT BeerT (IO Int).

[eru]

Monad stacks are so last decade.

[bulte-rs]

So this is why the golang community prefers:

    for c := range(ns) {
        // some blah
    }

[rakoo]

The golang community likes being safe:

  a, err := doFirstThing()
  if err != nil {
    return err
  }

  b, err := doSecondThing(a)
  if err != nil {
    return err
  }

  c, err := doThirdThing(b)
  if err != nil {
    return err
  }

until your keyboard keys go off.

(and I'm a happy gopher myself)

[eru]

Oh, small typo (I think): no parens around (IO Int).

[tl]

I'm not sure that matters either.

Let's say you're talking about Java. A "bad" team will have mountains of code. A "good" team will apply Greenspun's Tenth Rule and use a lisp to compress down the mountain to the extent that "lisp" can compress it over Java.

You may protest that the lisp has angle brackets and that it's inferior to say Clojure, but the machine does not care.

[bbcbasic]

Yes because the causation goes the other way.

The kind of org that cares about how it writes software will choose the right tool for the job, which may be Lisp. However they may be able to achieve their aims in Java. Whatever they choose it would have been carefully considered.

The kind of org that doesn't care how it writes software is unlikely to choose an outlier language and will use C#, PHP, Java etc. because it is easier to hire devs and you won't get fired for choosing it.