On 2012-03-12, at 7:08 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > 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.
+1 but not for performance reasons. Smalltalk implemented primitives as primitives but didn't directly expose that implementation in the language as Java did. Consequently Smalltalk performance was better than Java but the advantage was Java looked similar to what people were used to where as Smalltalk was just "weird". Kirk -- 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.
