|
> has hinted, numerous times, that Java was a compromise. How does that make what I wrote completely wrong? Good design is a compromise. Gosling presented Java's design as a wolf in sheep's clothing. They figured that the features most important in Lisp and Smalltalk are memory safety, GC, dynamic linking and reflection, shoved all of them into the JVM, and wrapped them in a non-threatening language that could actually gain significant traction. That's what good design looks like. > Regarding Java's "success" (which falls in the same category as PHP's success, Python's success, Javascript's "success" and so on) I urge you to consider it as a classic example of "Worse is Better". Eh. Unlike PHP (and maybe Javascript and Python, too), more useful good software has been written in Java than in any other language in the history of computing, with the possible exception of C. I don't know by what metric -- other than personal aesthetic preference -- you'd consider it "worse" (or, conversely, what your metric for success is). Remember that Java was designed to be a conservative language for industry use. In his article outlining Java's design[1], Gosling writes: "Java is a blue collar language. It’s not PhD thesis material but a language for a job. Java feels very familiar to many different programmers because I had a very strong tendency to prefer things that had been used a lot over things that just sounded like a good idea." I think it is funny to doubt Java's success considering its stated mission, goals and non-goals. Smalltalk also tried to become a commercially successful language. I think it is equally funny not to see it as a failure in that regard, which was certainly among its goals. The extensive work done on Smalltalk (Self, really) at Sun and elsewhere was quickly absorbed by Java, and so Smalltalk has certainly achieved success in enabling Java. [1]: http://www.win.tue.nl/~evink/education/avp/pdf/feel-of-java.... |
Which is one reason Java is a shitty language. It may be popular, "a blue collar language" but it's not sitting on some apex of programming languages, and it's certainly not Art. Which makes sense if you consider that the vast majority of programmers working today are not artists or craftsmen, but little more than commoditized manual laborers. I also include the "engineers" working at such perceived bastions of engineering excellence as Google here [1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14066898