4 ms·

it works for him and the software he is the end responsible for. But does it work for the software he’s responsible for, or does the software he’s responsible

it works for him and the software he is the end responsible for. But does it work for the software he’s responsible for, or does the software he’s responsible for work in spite of his behavior? How is that working out? Less hurt feelings I guess but it's not making any significant advances either and has been stagnant for years. Commissions that don’t hurt people’s feelings make something stagnant? Could there be other forces at work to explain Java’s stagnation, other than a commission that doesn’t hurt people’s feelings enough?

ben509 8y ago
> Could there be other forces at work to explain Java’s stagnation, other than a [committee] that doesn’t hurt people’s feelings enough? Not a chance. All of Java's roadmap discussion revolves around dealing with legacy issues, and they even had an entire major release just trying to refactor the language into modules because the core was so bloated. You can't blame lack of funding, or that it's a niche product or anything like that. You can't blame lack of talent, because there were a ton of very smart people working on it. You can't blame novel ideas, because very little in Java was unprecedented. Java's legacy traces inexorably back to: a. features that no one could say no to b. badly implemented features