[taeric]

This is taking some liberties with "installed." Java was never meaningfully installed on all machines. Such that getting it to work was surprisingly difficult for most users. You could maybe argue that Flash was well entrenched, but I don't think that would get too many objections. Indeed, many early Flash sites were better at interactivity than many modern sites.

VBScript, I'm almost willing to cede. That said, I don't remember it ever being a thing that websites tried to use. Even back in the days of them ripping off Sun with JScript. I'm also curious when they had 90% of the browsers with it? Would love to see a solid timeline on that.

Note, too, that I never pushed that JavaScript is bad on this. Indeed, I agree with you that it is nowhere near as bad as is often stated. What it lacks, is discipline. Which is why it seems to have near every paradigm accounted for nowadays.

That said, /if/ Google teamed up with Apple and got that pushed on all devices for native, I suspect you would see it leak into the browsers in that 2 years and that we would indeed start seeing more Swift developers at large. And a ton of "reasons you should migrate to Swift" for your websites.

[ttfkam]

You probably misremember. Java was indeed installed on effectively all browser-capable machines from 1997-200x. All you needed was an <applet> tag, not an <object> or <embed> like other plugins like Flash. Speaking of Flash, it came preloaded for a time, but mostly rode the ActiveX wave for installs. You could not count on it being installed though. I vividly remember the fallback markup when it was unavailable.

Internet Explorer had 90% marketshare in the years around 2004. Netscape was dead. Mozilla/Phoenix/Firefox was a hopeful, not a contender. VBScript was everywhere IE was, and folks still preferred JS, even if their sites proudly proclaimed "Best viewed with Internet Explorer". In the late 1990s/early 2000s, MSDN was full of examples pushing VBScript. It became second nature to myself and coworkers to just reason out what the equivalent JS looked like on the fly. Microsoft absolutely tried its best to replace JS, but devs wouldn't have it, and the number of JS-powered sites was just too large for Microsoft to simply drop compatibility.

It was around that time that Microsoft stopped making updates of any kind to Internet Explorer for years. Folks today really don't comprehend the debt we hold to Mozilla for breaking out of the notion that the web was feature complete.

[taeric]

No, I remember quite well how that never worked as well as you'd have wanted it to. So, yes, there was an installation of java. No, it probably didn't work correctly. Worse, it was probably not updated. With no real path on how to update for most folks.

Such that, yes it was "installed," but it was about like relying on vanilla JavaScript back then. Which you didn't do. You pulled in jquery or whatever and monkey patched some sanity into the environment. Something you couldn't do with Java.

VB had the odd curse of being VB. Everyone was certain that MS wanted it dead, and everyone also knew that if you were writing a VB application, you might as well just make it directly in Access. Which, granted, wasn't a bad solution for a lot of things.