[jack9]

> we have tried the elegance of extremely simple and open language/runtime architectures, and that was always an abject failure.

Just because it was tried in the past, doesn't mean it wasn't the right direction.

> Attempts to discipline these languages came too late,

So, as an industry, we were learning and now we know some basic principles. Discipline does a great deal for Erlang. Ironically the game sockets he describes are basically how Erlang functions at scale. To say the practice is always an abject failure is burying your head in the sand.

[opinali]

You didn't understand what I meant by "discipline". I didn't mean best-practices -- i.e. programmers learning to not abuse openness without any help from the language. What I meant was adding the missing controls to languages (making them more similar to the languages James criticizes) so proper discipline could be enforced: visibility, module systems, restrictions to change core runtime classes, optional static typing etc.