On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 18:22 +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: […] > So why was Java successful? It was not compatible with an > existing language.
Java has a weird history compared to other languages. It switched from white goods programming language to browser programming language just at the moment a large number of academics world wide were getting dissatisfied with Pascal/C/C++/Scheme/Miranda/OCaml as the set of languages to choose from to teach first year programming. It very rapidly failed as a browser language, but switched wonderfully quickly to be a virtual machine based general programming language. Timing is everything here… a large number of academic jumped on the Java bandwagon, so a large number of undergraduates were forced to learn it. There was a period in late 1990s and early 2000s when every CS graduate knew Java, and, to the eternal shame of academics, no other programming language. The second part of the success, at least in London, was the dissatisfaction of many in the finance industry with Smalltalk. They saw Java, and the number of Java programmers being produced by academic and switched to Java. The rest, as they say, is history. > Neither Rust nor Go are compatible with C++. > Rust, D and Go are all compatible with C in some sense. C is the portable assembly language of computing, any high level programming language that cannot use C APIs is a dead language. > Basically Herb is claiming to succeed a language must be able to > be a drop in replacement for C++ in a mix-match way. I think it > is a fallacy. Herb does have a (not exactly) hidden agenda that C++ is the one true programming language. > There is no single recipe that will make a language successful. Very true. -- Russel. =========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
