2 ms·
> Referring to deploying the JVM as “operational complexity” or referring to C or C++ as “unsafe” both strike me as insecure, defensive attitudes. Calling thei
by tln 8y ago
> Referring to deploying the JVM as “operational complexity” or referring to C or C++ as “unsafe” both strike me as insecure, defensive attitudes.
Calling their attitudes "insecure" sounds petty to me. The engineering rationale was laid out and makes sense, especially if you apply a little charity and read that the JVM operational complexity was undesirable TO THEM.
If your org has JVM deployments already with experience managing at scale then this argument against Java is not valid.
> If not, then you might use a different language
That's what they decided to do and then got slammed for.
> Regardless though, these feel like non-sequitur, pejorative pot shots to characterize Java, C or C++ in some type generic bad light, as if those tools are a priori conceptually bad, which is a silly point of view.
Maybe try reading their reasons again, and assume they are talking about their org, use case, and engineers and not everyone else.
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoIn the post it is specifically stated that Java was ruled out a priori because deploying the JVM and associated libraries is unqualified “operational complexity” that they don’t desire. They have not said why that is undesirable in a use-case specific way, only that they view it as generically undesirable. Similarly they brush past usage of C or C++ because of “unsafety” without explaining why you could not achieve a parsimonious, safe solution in either of those languages. Here is the quote again where all three languages are disingenuously dismissed in a manner that is clearly meant to be pejorative, > “Java was excluded from consideration because of the requirement of deploying the JVM and associated libraries along with any program to their production servers. This was an amount of operational complexity and resource overhead that was as undesirable as the unsafety of C or C++.” Upon re-reading the article, I stand firm that my analysis is fair, that I’m not reading anything into it, and that the article needlessly tosses in malignant comments about these other languages, and that this is a clear indicator of insecurity.