3 ms·

>If ML was so good, it should have won anyway. Experience proves otherwise, to the best of my knoledge. For gaining wide propagation in a niche, whether of hab

>If ML was so good, it should have won anyway. Experience proves otherwise, to the best of my knoledge. For gaining wide propagation in a niche, whether of habitat or market, being the paragon of what can be conceived is rarely the way to optimize success. There are many other factors, and technical merit is lightly pondered. That's true for life, where there are numerous examples where a function is filled by an organ that evolved in a counter manner of what an engineer sense of elegance/parsimony would provide. That's also something that happens for technical products, where early proliferation in the market seems to offer a far more successful advantage than excellence of the product. That said, I never had the opportunity to touch ML, and only already heard about it through my personal research on the roots of Coq that I studied during my CS courses in University. I didn't touched much of Java since I left University. Last year I worked on an SDK provided for several languages, including Java, so it gave me the opportunity to look at how it evolved, and play with its integration of functional paradigm. That still requires far too much boilerplate code to my gust, but is bit less frustrating in how you can structure your code.

pron 7y ago
> Experience proves otherwise, to the best of my knowledge. It's very hard to say that it does in programming, at least. Even though we could easily come up with value metrics for programming languages, we don't really know what they are for any particular language. However, that, in itself tells us something. The software industry is an environment with strong selective pressures. That big difference in "quality" (i.e. some metric with a bottom-line impact) will go unnoticed is hard to believe. It doesn't make sense from a theoretical perspective -- adaptive traits should be detected in a selective environment, and it also doesn't fit with observed reality. We observe that technologies that truly provide an adaptive benefit are adopted at a pace commensurate with their relative adaptability; often practically overnight. So we have reasons to believe that it is not true that "better" languages lose, at least not ones that have some measure of adoption at all.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  > strong selective pressures The opposite is true. Unlike in electronics, construction, shipbuilding, you can write a shitty software and patch the hell out of it after release most of the time with the few exceptions. Hence the only thing that matters is how cheap and replaceable the developers are. Unlike pharma or architecture, where errors are always costly. Java was successful because is was 1) pushed by big enterprise company, 2) familiar to people with C,C++,perl background and 3) overall easy to write at the expense of verbosity and bloated codebases (who cares if you could just hire too many of the cheap devs who would write as many classes as needed).
  - pron 7y ago
    > The opposite is true. Unlike in electronics, construction, shipbuilding, you can write a shitty software and patch the hell out of it after release most of the time with the few exceptions. What happens in software is what the market wants. You cannot claim that something is better if it is better at doing something that the industry doesn't want (and even that you can't show). It's like the Betamax vs. VHS: Betamax was better at some metric that few if anyone cared about, but VHS was better at what people actually cared about. > Java was successful because Java was (and is) successful because it was (and is) a very good product with good backing. At the time, other companies, like Microsoft, Borland, IBM and others that few now remember also heavily pushed other products, and they didn't do as well. I am not claiming that Java is the best possible programming environment, but it is pretty funny to claim that some specific platform/language is better with absolutely nothing to support that claim.
    - ernst_klim 7y ago
      > What happens in software is what the market wants. Sure thing, I'm just emphasizing that it's a more of a social-enterprise-management issue, than a software quality. > Java was (and is) successful because it was (and is) a very good product with good backing. Or just because it's Sun/Oracle/baked into android/symbian. Who knows? IMHO it's more of a "nobody was fired for using java" than "java is a good language". It's a language for managers, not for programmers. > Microsoft, Borland, IBM MS does pretty well with CLR, for another reason, though. There were no product at the moment which could compete with Java in terms of marketing, money, support etc. Borland had nothing for serious enterprise, MS had C++ and VB only back then, regarding IBM I don't even know what you mean, Smalltalk?

pron 7y ago

> Experience proves otherwise, to the best of my knowledge. It's very hard to say that it does in programming, at least. Even though we could easily come up with value metrics for programming languages, we don't really know what they are for any particular language. However, that, in itself tells us something. The software industry is an environment with strong selective pressures. That big difference in "quality" (i.e. some metric with a bottom-line impact) will go unnoticed is hard to believe. It doesn't make sense from a theoretical perspective -- adaptive traits should be detected in a selective environment, and it also doesn't fit with observed reality. We observe that technologies that truly provide an adaptive benefit are adopted at a pace commensurate with their relative adaptability; often practically overnight. So we have reasons to believe that it is not true that "better" languages lose, at least not ones that have some measure of adoption at all.

ernst_klim 7y ago
> strong selective pressures The opposite is true. Unlike in electronics, construction, shipbuilding, you can write a shitty software and patch the hell out of it after release most of the time with the few exceptions. Hence the only thing that matters is how cheap and replaceable the developers are. Unlike pharma or architecture, where errors are always costly. Java was successful because is was 1) pushed by big enterprise company, 2) familiar to people with C,C++,perl background and 3) overall easy to write at the expense of verbosity and bloated codebases (who cares if you could just hire too many of the cheap devs who would write as many classes as needed).
- pron 7y ago
  > The opposite is true. Unlike in electronics, construction, shipbuilding, you can write a shitty software and patch the hell out of it after release most of the time with the few exceptions. What happens in software is what the market wants. You cannot claim that something is better if it is better at doing something that the industry doesn't want (and even that you can't show). It's like the Betamax vs. VHS: Betamax was better at some metric that few if anyone cared about, but VHS was better at what people actually cared about. > Java was successful because Java was (and is) successful because it was (and is) a very good product with good backing. At the time, other companies, like Microsoft, Borland, IBM and others that few now remember also heavily pushed other products, and they didn't do as well. I am not claiming that Java is the best possible programming environment, but it is pretty funny to claim that some specific platform/language is better with absolutely nothing to support that claim.
  - ernst_klim 7y ago
    > What happens in software is what the market wants. Sure thing, I'm just emphasizing that it's a more of a social-enterprise-management issue, than a software quality. > Java was (and is) successful because it was (and is) a very good product with good backing. Or just because it's Sun/Oracle/baked into android/symbian. Who knows? IMHO it's more of a "nobody was fired for using java" than "java is a good language". It's a language for managers, not for programmers. > Microsoft, Borland, IBM MS does pretty well with CLR, for another reason, though. There were no product at the moment which could compete with Java in terms of marketing, money, support etc. Borland had nothing for serious enterprise, MS had C++ and VB only back then, regarding IBM I don't even know what you mean, Smalltalk?