Real business thinking. You can't make a product yourself, you inexplicably need a bunch of other people around doing stuff for it to work.
> I know it’s romantic to think that one person can create an incredible product in isolation. If that’s what you believe, stick to reading romance novels, and stay the heck out of software development.
This is the only fallacy I could find mentioned in the article.
Are you trolling? What the actual fuck are people thinking when they post comments like this? Disregarding that you can spend small fractions of bitcoins, what happens when you lose a dollar bill? inb4 "Oh don't worry about it because the bank just makes money out of thin air"
>I would also like to believe open source makes software more secure, but I'm not sure if there is any research that confirms it.
OSS is more secure because it's easier to verify than machine code. The fact that it is still not easy to verify is simply a flaw in the choice of PL/build system. Obviously if you try to verify a project in C, you're not going to get far, as the behaviour of most of the code will be undefined. Code written in the E programming language (http://erights.org) for example, is orders of magnitudes more easy to verify, simply due to forced encapsulation and that the semantics of it are much more obvious.
Are you joking? They fail to mention the most important point of Java/C# vs C++ or C, which is that they are safe (e.g no buffer overflows) and their semantics are a million times easier to grasp (e.g int's behavior is specified for all possible operator/operand combinations). I guess being able to write code that works isn't a very popular marketing point.
It sounds like you don't actually understand technical tradeoffs of programming languages.
>I couldn't fight all the prejudices surrounding Perl
Programming languages aren't people, you can't be racist against a PL. Stop using rhetoric and instead talk technical. The reason most people don't use Perl is because it's both impractical and theoretically stupid (not composable, etc). It's kind of hard not to be prejudice against a language that has (albeit optional) dynamic name resolution. The only time I've seen Perl work is for writing tiny scripts (e.g milworm.com), but there are tons of other languages that can be done in. It's actually funny because the fact that you don't have to escape regular expressions in the source of a Perl program is probably one of the only reasons it's popular for writing crappy scripts.
>it's up to you if your code is readable, maintainable and easy to deploy.
By that logic assembly language would be considered usable for large projects