Moving back to .NET

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 21:03:12 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> So, no, one can't say that in a blanket way risk aversion is 
> good project management if what you care about is enterprise 
> value rather than what people think of you.

Risk aversion is good software project management. Period.

It is very common for software projects to not meet their target 
and fail to adapt to changes in the environment, so the first 
thing you should do is mitigate risk for failure and risks that 
you may not be able to move/change in the future.

You have to measure up the potential gains against potential 
risks. If the gains is 30% increased productivity and 30% higher 
risk for failure... then you give up the increased productivity 
and argue in favour of increased budgets.

Most current imperative languages are more or less of the same 
nature. They have different short-comings, but for 
non-system-programming you can basically do the same project in 
Go, C, C++, D, Java, C#, Nim, Rust, Ada... BUT that is only the 
language. Production involves more than the language. C++, Java 
and C# has a much larger set of options than the other 
alternatives.

That Nim and D are more fun is not really a project management 
factor that should have a high priority.