[racket] Racket in Industry Apologia (was Re: Racket Apology)

On Oct 2, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Brian Mastenbrook wrote:

> On 09/30/2011 02:07 PM, John Clements wrote:
>> Racket is an experimental language (cf. Shriram's "hothouse"). We are
>> *constantly* experimenting with the language, and on another level,
>> we have a language that's designed to enable *your* language
>> experiments. That's what makes it an exciting language to work with
>> and on, and why it has design features that are still years away from
>> appearing in mainstream languages.
>> 
>> That's *also* the reason that you'll almost never see Racket used in
>> industry. It's a language that doesn't compromise its ideals, and is
>> constantly innovating, and if you're a business that's looking for a
>> stable language with a broad supply of programmers, Racket would be
>> an extremely surprising choice.
> 
> I feel compelled to point out that there's a big difference between "industry" as a whole and "business that's looking for a stable language with a broad supply of programmers". Just as most businesses aren't the big corporations everyone likes to rant about, not all (and maybe even not most?) tech companies aren't big companies where it's acceptable to throw warm bodies with a passable knowledge of Java or Python at a problem. Outside of the large companies of the world, Racket's rapid evolution is not a problem and not even a detriment. 
...

It was not long ago that Java and Python were unacceptable for the same excuses that are now applied to Racket and any other 'new' alternative.

What is next?

rac