dollarsigns

(Note this point stands compatible with the entirely orthogonal point about expressiveness and concision of a language.)

For me (at least due to client demands ..) awesome software, in part, posits the requirement of economically maintainable artifact.

PG's writings on Blub languages is imo addressed to a narrow audience of readers as it does not in anyway address maintenance and extensions to systems by non-elite development teams. Even elite teams, if tasked with delivery of products to non-elite consumers, must factor in the economic equation of the cost proposal.

To wit:

Having a bench of solid OCaml/Scala developers is a viable economic proposition for Wall Street and rich hedge funds; starry start-ups; and possibly elite teams in major media; a hacker community project. It is insanely difficult enough to find competent help in Blub-land, much less competent Scala programmers.

And, of course, the majority of software is developed/internally-consumed precisely by shops that must staff from blub-land. And surely you are aware that a big chunk of "programmers" out there are just recent graduates of some web-app vocational CS education.

Software language economy is not simply about lines of code. The economic cost equation of a language is definitely a critical factor if positioned as a general use language.

Java is unsurpassed in terms of the balance it brings to the economic equation: it is effectively powerful enough to allow serious developers to create "awesome" software, and approachable enough for blubland coders to crank out (yes) meh code that gets the (business) job done.

This fact was recognized by all entities chasing development dollars out there, including IBM, Oracle, and in its own cute way, via Google (Android).

Tell me: why isn't Android dev done with Scala or Clojure? My answer: Because Google management is not stupid.

> the thought that she would object never crossed my mind, my bad.

I believe you!

And here then is the point for all geeks present: Clearly even smart, informed, people make mistakes. The notion of 'buyer beware' is the ethics of hucksters, not Hackers.

Consider that:

- the basis of your very questionable action [1] is precisely the type of taking-shortcuts-due-to-x-factor reasoning that this event is all about.

- the 'perceived cost' of your asking EJ "May I forward your contact info to a man who I fully trust and believe well positioned to address this to all parties' satisfaction?" was apparently deemed [2] to be excessive in the same way the simple prominent and bold statement "AirBnB takes NO responsibilities for actions of either providers or renters".

[1]: forwarding identity to PG.

[2]: you seem like a very smart guy. this can not have been an omission.

[edit: fix notes]

Call me old fashioned, but I personally believe that we, the technical elite who effortlessly can integrate new tech into our lives and understand the deeper implications of technology being used -- here is looking at you Google founders in context of privacy -- are a form of a pseudo nobility and have responsibilities to our less fortunate brethren (who yes, sometimes DO need big warning stickers on comforters and coffee cups containing excessively hot liquids).

imho, this affair is simply a manifestation of a larger problem:

the profit motive has diluted hacker ethics.

PG is a thinking man, and an effective one at that. Reading (not that deeply) between the lines, clearly every sensible person initially "has doubts" about the concept, but then apparently meeting the team is supposed to address those doubts.

Sounds like the AirBnB team are excellent as bs'ing people.

And dear PG:

Cheering for AirBnB to become as big as eBay circa 2009's business plan seems to indicate that even the adults here were not giving any weight to the safety and security issues inherent in an eBay scale operation. I would very much appreciate hearing your thoughts about this topic (if any) that informed your decision.