On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Fabrizio Giudici > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I won't object to anything you wrote - I'm just pointing out that in 1995 > > betting that the compiler could do all the involved magic, and in an > > efficient way, was probably a hazardous bet. > > I also think it is probably an overstatement to think it was the > existence of primitives that "won" the battle for java, and not a > ridiculously effective marketing push by those involved. > No single criterion won, obviously, but I think that Java's decision to use primitives was instrumental to its success. Java almost died many times during its early years for performance reasons but somehow, it survived and eventually, compiler and VM technology put it over that bump. Who knows, maybe it would never have made it out of there if it had gone the "everything is an object" way. Also, I really don't buy for a second that marketing was important to Java's success. The developer community and the growing infatuation for live web pages at the time is what made Java cross the gap, not Sun's (fairly feeble, for people who remember these days) marketing. -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
