4 ms·

I agree with what you write. But I also believe the counterfactual that, had Sun/Oracle been based their language upon (core) ML rather than Java (with suitabl

I agree with what you write. But I also believe the counterfactual that, had Sun/Oracle been based their language upon (core) ML rather than Java (with suitable pragmatic additions like code loading and been able to convince programmers to use it), then that language would be even more dominant and performant today. Many of Java's mistakes and detours would have been avoided from Day 1. Can I prove this? No. But the fact that Java and essentially all other successful languages have gradually been adapting essentially all of ML (sans modules), is evidence. It means that language designers like G Bierman, A Hejlsberg, Odersky et al, too have gone Milner's way.

pron 7y ago
> then that language would be even more dominant and performant today I think you should watch the first 20 minutes of this talk: https://youtu.be/Dq2WQuWVrgQ https://youtu.be/Dq2WQuWVrgQ Java's early designers realised (or believed) that the features with most bang-for-the buck weren't linguistic, but were: GC, dynamic linking, and performance with observability. Linguistic features, overall, were a detractor from those, because people were hesitant to use them, and so they missed out on the big benefits. Java decided to provide these most important features wrapped in a language that was non-threatening at the time; James Gosling called it "a wolf in sheep's clothing." In other words, a familiar language was a very central part of the strategy. You say you believe it would have worked with a non-familiar one, well, we can never know, but if it hadn't, then much none of the other, more important features would have mattered. > But the fact that Java and essentially all other successful languages have gradually been adapting essentially all of ML (sans modules), is evidence As I said in another comment, it's not that all successful languages are adopting ML's features but some, and those ones do it because they influence one another and they knowingly borrow from ML because they like it. In other words, the designers of some influential languages like ML. Is it a coincidence? I don't know, but I'm hesitant to say that it's evidence that ML was "right." I, too, personally like ML, but I wouldn't claim its design leads to better outcomes than others. Some successful language clearly do not adopt ML's features -- e.g. all the untyped ones and Go. BTW, Java's objects are a different take on modules. If you've seen 1ML, that's almost an OO language.
- Cladode 7y ago
  I understand the network effect, I understand that most decisions on PL are not based on technical reasons. Most non-experts mostly worry about syntax, as per P Wadler: "The simplest thing to do is a significant change to the semantics. People won't argue the way they do about syntax." ML had GC, it would have been easy to add dynamic linking, and X Leroy made Ocaml fast, with a tiny fraction of the resources that have been poured into the JVM. Admittedly, this was a major breakthrough that was unexpected. I reckon the main problem was getting OO to work properly with generics: type inference becomes a problem and you have to worry about co/contravariance. A Hejlsberg certainly wasn't on the ML train in the past. For a start he didn't think generics are a good idea (he told me personaly). Typescript shows that he changed his mind! Go explicitly rejected generics at the start, but Go-2 is scheduled to get them. Module systems are not such a big deal in my exerience, I don't think ML's was a full success.

pron 7y ago

> then that language would be even more dominant and performant today I think you should watch the first 20 minutes of this talk: https://youtu.be/Dq2WQuWVrgQ https://youtu.be/Dq2WQuWVrgQ Java's early designers realised (or believed) that the features with most bang-for-the buck weren't linguistic, but were: GC, dynamic linking, and performance with observability. Linguistic features, overall, were a detractor from those, because people were hesitant to use them, and so they missed out on the big benefits. Java decided to provide these most important features wrapped in a language that was non-threatening at the time; James Gosling called it "a wolf in sheep's clothing." In other words, a familiar language was a very central part of the strategy. You say you believe it would have worked with a non-familiar one, well, we can never know, but if it hadn't, then much none of the other, more important features would have mattered. > But the fact that Java and essentially all other successful languages have gradually been adapting essentially all of ML (sans modules), is evidence As I said in another comment, it's not that all successful languages are adopting ML's features but some, and those ones do it because they influence one another and they knowingly borrow from ML because they like it. In other words, the designers of some influential languages like ML. Is it a coincidence? I don't know, but I'm hesitant to say that it's evidence that ML was "right." I, too, personally like ML, but I wouldn't claim its design leads to better outcomes than others. Some successful language clearly do not adopt ML's features -- e.g. all the untyped ones and Go. BTW, Java's objects are a different take on modules. If you've seen 1ML, that's almost an OO language.

Cladode 7y ago
I understand the network effect, I understand that most decisions on PL are not based on technical reasons. Most non-experts mostly worry about syntax, as per P Wadler: "The simplest thing to do is a significant change to the semantics. People won't argue the way they do about syntax." ML had GC, it would have been easy to add dynamic linking, and X Leroy made Ocaml fast, with a tiny fraction of the resources that have been poured into the JVM. Admittedly, this was a major breakthrough that was unexpected. I reckon the main problem was getting OO to work properly with generics: type inference becomes a problem and you have to worry about co/contravariance. A Hejlsberg certainly wasn't on the ML train in the past. For a start he didn't think generics are a good idea (he told me personaly). Typescript shows that he changed his mind! Go explicitly rejected generics at the start, but Go-2 is scheduled to get them. Module systems are not such a big deal in my exerience, I don't think ML's was a full success.