4 ms·

Java is an artefact, not a person. It is not possible to be “unfair” to it, nor is it possible to be “fair” to it. What I describe is a process by which a serie

Java is an artefact, not a person. It is not possible to be “unfair” to it, nor is it possible to be “fair” to it. What I describe is a process by which a series of good decisions over time lead to a result that is sub-optimal in one axis, namely velocity of progress. If you want to argue that this is optimal overall, even if it is less than optimal for the velocity of progress, I do not stand in your way. It is very similar to the “Innovator’s Dilemma,” where companies can make a series of perfectly logical decisions to maximize their profits and wind up missing a big new market that disrupts their existing market. I leave it to you to decide whether Java has missed a big new market for programmers by virtue of being trapped into serving its legacy customer base. The thing I see as similar is the cumulative effects of many small decisions over time.

CJefferson 15y ago
Your article appears to be written in various ways which imply Java is in a bad state. Consider: What is my client to think? That I have given them a marvellous, well-architected application? Or that years of bolting a feature on here and hacking a workaround there have created a nightmarish miss-mash where the velocity of progress is asymptotically approaching zero? While not directly applying to Java, I feel the implication here is that Java is in the second category. However, the comparison with Java breaks down. I am sure the Java designers could have cleanly added lambdas in a very short period of time, and all other kinds of exciting features, if they abandoned backwards compatibility. There is a huge difference between modifying an app and a language in use by millions of programmers. There is an interesting discussion to be had an apps become a "nightmarish mish-mash", and on languages becoming parallelised by backwards compatibility, but I am not sure they are as directly comparable as you wish. However of course, each to their own opinion.
mnutt 15y ago
It's interesting to consider Java in light of the Innovator's Dilemma, since companies facing the Innovator's Dilemma would like to avoid it so they can continue making money. But Java is a tool more than it is a company, so maybe it is actually good that it maintain its course, even if it means its gradual irrelevance for many of the tasks it was once suited for.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  The separation of Java the language from Java the virtual machine might allow Sun/Oracle avoid the Innovator's Dilemma. They can maintain Java as a conservative language, the "COBOL of the 21st Century", but innovate with new (but conveniently binary-compatible) languages like Scala and Clojure.
stmartin 15y ago
raganwald, I am waiting for your language that will, across a 10+ year time span with millions of users/contributors, not only serve its legacy but also adapt to/conquer new markets. Just make sure you don't call it LISP2 or Arc2.

CJefferson 15y ago

Your article appears to be written in various ways which imply Java is in a bad state. Consider: What is my client to think? That I have given them a marvellous, well-architected application? Or that years of bolting a feature on here and hacking a workaround there have created a nightmarish miss-mash where the velocity of progress is asymptotically approaching zero? While not directly applying to Java, I feel the implication here is that Java is in the second category. However, the comparison with Java breaks down. I am sure the Java designers could have cleanly added lambdas in a very short period of time, and all other kinds of exciting features, if they abandoned backwards compatibility. There is a huge difference between modifying an app and a language in use by millions of programmers. There is an interesting discussion to be had an apps become a "nightmarish mish-mash", and on languages becoming parallelised by backwards compatibility, but I am not sure they are as directly comparable as you wish. However of course, each to their own opinion.

mnutt 15y ago

It's interesting to consider Java in light of the Innovator's Dilemma, since companies facing the Innovator's Dilemma would like to avoid it so they can continue making money. But Java is a tool more than it is a company, so maybe it is actually good that it maintain its course, even if it means its gradual irrelevance for many of the tasks it was once suited for.

cpeterso 15y ago
The separation of Java the language from Java the virtual machine might allow Sun/Oracle avoid the Innovator's Dilemma. They can maintain Java as a conservative language, the "COBOL of the 21st Century", but innovate with new (but conveniently binary-compatible) languages like Scala and Clojure.

stmartin 15y ago

raganwald, I am waiting for your language that will, across a 10+ year time span with millions of users/contributors, not only serve its legacy but also adapt to/conquer new markets. Just make sure you don't call it LISP2 or Arc2.