By: Michael Foord
Hmmm… Python grew (and thrived) during 1995 and 2005. Ruby existed during that time, but didn’t take off until the Rails explosion. Erlang similarly, plus Clojure, Boo and F# are all based on existing...
View ArticleBy: Craig Stuntz
I think that may be <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx" rel="nofollow">this system</a>. The 128 GB is an OS limit; the box has more.
View ArticleBy: tim
@Michael All good points. Re. runtimes, one thing I recall Martin Fowler saying is that JRuby was easier to sell to corporates than native Ruby because they drew comfort from the fact that it ran on a...
View ArticleBy: John
The advantage of the CLR and the JVM is that corporates don’t have to throw away their considerable investment in existing code. At the bank I work in we have 10 yrs+ of working, debugged, tested,...
View ArticleBy: Daniel Moth
Craig, that is 64 core system. I believe Anders used this one (and he probably used native code to get 100% CPU usage, unlike my 50%):...
View ArticleBy: Kevin Hazzard
There’s a big difference between doldrums and focus. I’d say that in the period between 1995 and 2005, there was plenty of language development activity going on. But businesses were not paying...
View ArticleBy: Rick Minerich
Kevin is right. It was in the early 2000s that F# began development. Many inside the movement knew of the great benefits but the industry pressure to stay the same was great. It wasn’t until the...
View ArticleBy: Henrik Vendelbo
C# looks at the world with Enterprise development shop glasses, and as such it adds up. It is important to remember though that there are other uses of computers in the wild than Enterprise data...
View Article
