3 ms·
The JVM took too long to achieve that ideal in a way that actually worked for end-user applications. Early java-based client applications had a horrible user e
by Goladus 9y ago
The JVM took too long to achieve that ideal in a way that actually worked for end-user applications. Early java-based client applications had a horrible user experience. Version conflicts were very annoying, especially on windows where you didn't have a command-line culture comfortable with simply switching between versions by modifying PATH and JAVA_HOME. And even when you didn't have version conflicts, Java applications had slow, idiosyncratic GUIs that often did not support basic and common features like ability to copy/paste or switch to arrow-key navigation through menus.
And on top of all that, it would still be more memory intensive than an equivalent native win32 application. Developers usually only shipped java-based UIs to Enterprise Software users who had no choice but to use what their bosses told them to use.
- vbezhenar 9y agoBrowsers have worse history with compatibility, they are more memory hungry than Java, performance is worse, their UI isn't even trying to mimic system UI (Java could have system L&F for 10 years at least, likely more).