[wyager]

>Something that succeeds as well as Java has to have some actual value

Well yes, it has some value. However, just because a lot of people like/believe something doesn't make it good/true.

It's not like corporations have some vast conspiracy in place to encourage the use of Java; it's simply that Java, for a number of reasons, is attractive to middle-management types, even though it's not the best language to make good software. That's not necessarily a criticism of Java; from many perspectives, making good software is not the primary goal.

Dijkstra's big thing was prioritizing good software over cheap software. This may not be a realistic goal, but it certainly explains why he preferred Haskell to Java.

He wrote some really good essays on why you need languages like Haskell to raise the overall quality of software floating about. The more you can shift the burden of guaranteeing correctness away from humans and towards infallible mechanical systems (like Haskell's relatively powerful type system), the more likely you are to end up with good/correct software.