[jasode]

>, so I'm not sure what unit of measure I'd need to observe the failure of Java desktop software.

When people say "Java failed on the desktop", it's in relation to the initial massive hype in 1995 by Sun Microsystems as the "Microsoft evil empire killer". Microsoft took the desktop threat seriously and quickly reacted in 1996 with a Java-clone called the J++ language -- which resulted in Sun's lawsuit.

There was a popular Java slogan back then of "write once, run anywhere"[1]. In other words, instead of writing desktop apps that specifically target the Win32 API, you write Java & Java byte code for the Java Virtual Machine. Instead of writing raw Javascript, code in Java to run as Java applets in the web browser. This was the same time period as the slogan "the network is the computer" that Oracle's Larry Ellison was also pushing. Both Sun and Oracle were trying to minimize Microsoft Windows' dominance with Java.

So yes, even though niche desktop software like JetBrains IDEs running on Java is a reality today, it is still somewhat of a failure when it's measured against the 1990s breathless promises.

It turns out that Java was much more successful on the server side. Ebay, Amazon, Google, etc all run tons of server-side Java. It is ironic that Javascript as the "toy" language to add a little dynamic interactivity to webpages over-achieved on the desktop while Java the "serious" language under-achieved its goals for the desktop.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_once,_run_anywhere

[topspin]

> Microsoft took the desktop threat seriously and quickly reacted in 1996 with a Java-clone called the J++ language -- which resulted in Sun's lawsuit.

I'm fully aware of the history. I was there and watched it unfold at the time. I also don't think it's terribly relevant; 1995 was a quarter century ago. Sun is dead. I'm just objectively counting the number of Java desktop programs I presently use and wondering if this supposed "failure" on the desktop isn't really just a widespread misconception. The software that I cited isn't riding the coattails of a 24 year old marketing campaign; they thrive of their own merit.

[jasode]

>I also don't think it's terribly relevant; 1995 was a quarter century ago.

It's relevant because the context of the conversation was this gp's quote you responded to: "Back then people still thought Java would take off on the desktop."

The "back then" is referencing XUL circa ~1997. And the "Java would take off" was the ambitious idea of most desktop apps being written in Java to weaken the MS Windows ecosystem. Not only was Java hyped to be a Microsoft killer, it was also touted to be a C/C++ killer. (E.g. the idea was that computer desktops have gotten so powerful with so many wasted cpu cycles that manual memory of C/C++ is obsolete and letting GC use the excess cpu to automatically manage memory is the future.) History has now shown us that prediction didn't happen either. C/C++ is still heavily used for new desktop apps. That's a different idea than today's 2019 landscape with some niche Java apps like Jetbrains IDEs.

I do understand your point. Yes, you can also have an alternative definition of "not a failure on desktop " because you can count some current Java apps today. That's also a valid perspective. However, for the sake of not confusing the conversation... that's not what the gp was originally talking about. I don't think there's any misconception about what "Java failed on the desktop" means -- especially among the HN audience. I also regularly use Jetbrains IDEA for Android deveopment and Webstorm for Javascript but my usage of those Java apps doesn't change what "Java failed on the desktop" means to other people.

[topspin]

Yes, I moved the goal posts making my point. I believe the storied history of Java clouds the contemporary reality of Java too much, to the point where one can argue Java "failed on the desktop" specifically among people that spend a good fraction of their waking hours using Java desktop software, and I appear to be one of the few that notices this irony.