4 ms·

I guess I count as a 90s programmer? I did technically write programs in the 90s. I thought Java applets (those things you'd embed in a webpage) were hot stuf

I guess I count as a 90s programmer? I did technically write programs in the 90s. I thought Java applets (those things you'd embed in a webpage) were hot stuff that would completely reshape the Web someday, but they managed to effectively die before the proprietary Flash. I thought Java as a server language was doomed for performance reasons, but that turned out to be just fine. Basically I completely misunderstood where Java was going. The expectations around smart home stuff were way off too. E.g. expectations were more along the lines of your house reminding you to go buy toilet paper. What we got was the ability to ask a hockey puck to buy some more when we notice ourselves running low, if you can get past the privacy concerns.

aparsons 5y ago
I wrote this months ago, but worth repeating- from a Microsoft perspective, as Java was seen as the Microsoft platform killer by many: “Java was a token threat. Bill knew it would not be performant enough on clients for Applets to succeed. They had to rebuild their language to put every fixed-size object on the stack because sorting an array<int> on a typical machine took forever. That’s why Java still doesn’t have operator overloading. That Java battle would be on the server, and [MSFT] didn’t have a good language to bring to the battle there. Wired and co loved to paint a picture of Microsoft v Java as Goliath v David. Not true - Java was a speedbump. The real threat was dumb terminals (aka web browsers). Even today, the world could run on Mac OS / iOS and Safari. If Microsoft was okay with sacrificing Windows market share and instead controlled content and services, they would be much more valuable.”
- maverick-iceman 5y ago
  > The real threat was dumb terminals (aka web browsers). Even today, the world could run on Mac OS / iOS and Safari. If Microsoft was okay with sacrificing Windows market share and instead controlled content and services, they would be much more valuable They were more valuable (as % of total stock market) back in 1999. MSFT massive valuation and the consequent Gates wealth swelling to 150B back in 1999 was the reason why the DOJ attacked them.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Don't feel bad. The original intent (or at least part of it) for Java was embedded systems. That... um... isn't how it worked out, like, at all.

aparsons 5y ago

I wrote this months ago, but worth repeating- from a Microsoft perspective, as Java was seen as the Microsoft platform killer by many: “Java was a token threat. Bill knew it would not be performant enough on clients for Applets to succeed. They had to rebuild their language to put every fixed-size object on the stack because sorting an array<int> on a typical machine took forever. That’s why Java still doesn’t have operator overloading. That Java battle would be on the server, and [MSFT] didn’t have a good language to bring to the battle there. Wired and co loved to paint a picture of Microsoft v Java as Goliath v David. Not true - Java was a speedbump. The real threat was dumb terminals (aka web browsers). Even today, the world could run on Mac OS / iOS and Safari. If Microsoft was okay with sacrificing Windows market share and instead controlled content and services, they would be much more valuable.”

maverick-iceman 5y ago
> The real threat was dumb terminals (aka web browsers). Even today, the world could run on Mac OS / iOS and Safari. If Microsoft was okay with sacrificing Windows market share and instead controlled content and services, they would be much more valuable They were more valuable (as % of total stock market) back in 1999. MSFT massive valuation and the consequent Gates wealth swelling to 150B back in 1999 was the reason why the DOJ attacked them.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Don't feel bad. The original intent (or at least part of it) for Java was embedded systems. That... um... isn't how it worked out, like, at all.