> Scheme is such a nice language to code and hack with; but, how safe would it be to expose it directly?
If you have really good Scheme programmers, who know their system, and built it competently, it's probably safer to expose that than your average conventional system.
(Example: A system in Scheme was the first to get a particular certification for sensitive data hosting on cloud servers. Partly because the very small team that developed it knew the stack inside and out, and could do whatever needed to be done, in a smart way.)
(Meanwhile, say, a consulting firm-led team who got a contract for a comparably complex system, and billed for 10 or 100 times the seat-warmers, with huge and ridiculously complex stacks they didn't understand... would just flounder, focus on appearances in sprint tasks, and churn out things implemented in poor ways, and with a large number of vulnerabilities, and probably take a lot longer before they could deliver a system that would survive the first day of use.)
In my experience this sentiment could be applied to anything. It's more about getting paid for "getting thing done" versus "working on thing".
I have particular personal experience with an app that could be done within several months with handful of people but was developed over several years by team of 50. I was flabbergasted at first but you need to understand politics first.
I can't fail to remember a joke about a law firm where the son of the most senior partner graduates from an ivy league university, joins the firm, and on the first day says he single-handedly sorted out one long-standing case. His father is angry: "You have just put an end to the case which was feeding us for last three years!"
If you have really good Scheme programmers, who know their system, and built it competently, it's probably safer to expose that than your average conventional system.
(Example: A system in Scheme was the first to get a particular certification for sensitive data hosting on cloud servers. Partly because the very small team that developed it knew the stack inside and out, and could do whatever needed to be done, in a smart way.)
(Meanwhile, say, a consulting firm-led team who got a contract for a comparably complex system, and billed for 10 or 100 times the seat-warmers, with huge and ridiculously complex stacks they didn't understand... would just flounder, focus on appearances in sprint tasks, and churn out things implemented in poor ways, and with a large number of vulnerabilities, and probably take a lot longer before they could deliver a system that would survive the first day of use.)