Re^8: Moose - my new religion

How is it possible that, start up's run by college kids with funding around quarter of $200,000 build stuff and a business around them. So that not only do they build the product completely but also get money for further work.

From what I make of this, either we are not managing money and people/resources well. Or just that we are too much into this socialism thing?

I still believe we can pull this thing off, Its possible. There will be contributors. And people will contribute provided we build something that works well for most common definition of production use. There would not have been Perl 5 or its contributors if Larry hadn't done the base work.

In order for people to buy that Perl 6 has future. They first need to be shown that there is something workable now as per most commonly accepted definitions of Production ready.

Comment on Re^8: Moose - my new religion

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: Moose - my new religion by davies (Monsignor) on Nov 26, 2011 at 21:41 UTC
In the UK, roughly 80% of all startups fail. Yes, four out of five. The venture capitalists know that, and will not look at businesses that will wash their faces. They will invest only if they see a prospect of a return well over five times their investment. If they can't get that, they can't cover the losses of the four other businesses that will fail. This was what went wrong in the DotCom bubble. VCs live by diversifying their risks, and with a new market sector opening up, they wanted to diversify into it. The common mistake was to concentrate on the diversification and not on the potential return. In fairness, because it was an unknown sector, it was difficult to estimate the returns accurately. But it wasn't impossible, and the premia paid for a lot of startups - Freeserve as a ghastly example - were way beyond the bounds of common sense. Then, when the 80% failed, the returns on investment of the successes were not adequate to cover the losses. Of course, not every investment made by VCs is a startup, and when you are dealing with a proven management team in a proven industry, the probabilities change. But some VCs concentrate on startups. The startups that are reported are the ones that do something spectacular. Either they fail in a way that causes general calamity or they make a fortune. The sort of business you describe in your post is the 20% success. But the owners will generally be very dissatisfied, feeling that they are "working for the VC, not themselves". Of course they are. The VC has to cover his losses. I am not a VC and have never worked for one, but I have shares in 3i. Regards, John Davies Update: fixed minor typo	[reply]
Re^9: Moose - my new religion by Anonymous Monk on Nov 26, 2011 at 15:23 UTC
How is it possible that, start up's run by college kids with funding around quarter of $200,000 build stuff and a business around them. So that not only do they build the product completely but also get money for further work. Business is a business, business is hard, luck , timing and connections play a huge part Start-up means peanuts for promise of future pay -- success not guaranteed Also, building an app/website is a million times simpler than building a programming language, or a virtual machine for said language to run-on, or maintaining 20 years of backwards compatibility across many OS .... Try running gitstats on perl.git	[reply]