On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Tim Delaney <timothy.c.dela...@gmail.com> wrote: > I also wouldn't describe Java as a > "perfectly good language" - it is at best a compromise language that just > happened to be heavily promoted and accepted at the right time. > > Python is *much* closer to my idea of a perfectly good language.
"Java" was originally four related, but separate, concepts: a source language, a bytecode, a sandboxing system, and one other that I can't now remember. The published bytecode was way ahead of its day, and coupled with the sandbox, it made Java into the one obvious language for web browser applets (until the rise of Flash, and then the increase in power of JavaScript etc). If the source language and bytecode+sandbox had been more disconnected, and the latter more standardized, Java might have been a hugely popular language because of one important role (web browser applets) that can also be used elsewhere. Instead, it made a promise of "write once, run everywhere" that didn't really hold up (the Australian Taxation Office let you file corporate taxes either on paper or using their Java application - and it didn't run on OS/2 Java) and lost a ton of potential marketshare. Imagine how the world would be today, if languages like NetRexx had had a chance to shine - completely different source code language, compiling to the same Java bytecode. Jython might have been the one most popular language for applet development... ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
