[Andys]

That sounds a little out of place for Hacker News.

As a hacker with the freedom to be creative with how I work on web applications, I can choose Ruby because I'm not an enterprise architecture astronaut working on Serious Applications.

The ruby thing was annoying but hasn't stopped me writing and deploying web apps in Rails. Hopefully it won't happen again.

[rw]

It's in place for Hacker News because when your site gets owned by a cracker, you can't do much hacking, can you? :)

[Andys]

Its completely open. I have the source code and the commit logs for the project. I can read the vulnerable code myself and make up my own mind about the potential attack vectors.

[Husafan]

Right. Open source languages become popular not by describing and fixing security holes promptly, but by having their super-users analyze patch notes for vulnerabilities, and code around them. The sure fire path to widely used, production ready releases.

[Andys]

All languages and their libraries have vulnerabilities, many not yet discovered.

Instead of living in perpetual fear of being hacked, I'm out there doing what is more important to me: creating great web applications that users want to use, in a language I love using.

[Husafan]

So then, in your opinion, IS there a difference between a language that is "production," ready, and one that is not? And if so, what is it?