Yes, but it seems lately that Yahoo is where good startups go to die.

Viaweb was purchased because it was successful. According to PG, it was successful because they could implement major features in a weekend.

... and you missed the whole point of my argument.

That the original author can major features quickly does not necessarily imply that an ongoing concern after the departure of the original author will also be able to implement major features quickly.

Choosing your environment with your successors in mind usually increases the value of your business (assuming, of course, that your valuation has a rational basis, which tech companies aren't always good at determining).

You missed the point of his argument.

Consider the Crash Bandicoot folks. Sure after Naughty Dog got bought, Sony couldn't figure out how to deal with the Lisp codebase and future projects were in C++. But Lisp let them build the first major platform game on the PSX, beating Sony itself to the market, and none of the stuff afterwards would've happened without that.

Your company isn't going to be worth much if it fails to execute and falls behind your competitors.

If using Java makes you 10% slower, but your code is more maintainable by Yahoo - Yahoo will buy your competitor who won market share with their superior features and quick response to customers.

NB: Choose Java because it is "enterprisy"

Small companies are inherently fragile though; new small companies even more so. By all means keep an eye on the future to watch for possibly tying your hands, but if that is what it takes to get you the customer base to survive, let alone build market share, RIGHT NOW then the sane business decision is to optimise for survival and do the short-term thing. Sort the long-term problem when you can and it's a real win, not because you might benefit later if you make it that far.

Steve Jobs had it right on this: artists ship.