5 ms·
Why wasn't Java considered?
by axiosgunnar 5y ago
Why wasn't Java considered?
- bajsejohannes 5y agoI don't know, but it does seem self-contradictory to say it wasn't considered, because there's an implicit consideration in that, even if it's short lived. SNOBOL4 on the other hand, was probably not considered at all.
- cesaref 5y agoWhy wasn't .net considered? The whole article is very weird, and there is little to learn from it. Wind on till they've actually made the port, and have run it for some time and then there will be some interesting lessons learnt, gazing into my crystal ball it will be somethong like 'turned out to be harder and take longer than we thought, but the result is good'
- axiosgunnar 5y agoThey have one short sentence plonked in there saying "Java was not considered". They didn't give a reason why. They didn't mention .net anywhere.
- EdwardDiego 5y agoBut that's the point. Why was it only Rust and Go when memory safety is a big deal and also can the author please show me on the doll where the bad Java hurt him?
- bullen 5y agoBecause it would be the best choice and it's old. You cannot sell C/Java. Computers are now reaching the maturity lightbulbs had when they artificially limited the burn time to 1000 hours. Personally I going back to C and JavaSE/J2ME on Rasperry 4/Pico.
- wrnr 5y agoI would like to apologise on behest of the Rust community, we are not all like this. Java would have been a fine choice.
- koufatz 5y agoJava or Kotlin seems actually a very good compromise. Very good performance and also actually in the top of the list of the energy efficient languages. Plus you can find a lot of more devs using JVM tech stack.
- EdwardDiego 5y agoObviously the well known habit of JVM applications to leak memory. /s (Although being fair, I've met some Java libs that leak memory (looking at you, Couchbase), usually via poor usage of byte buffers. But Rust doesn't let you use unsafe code constructs, so it'll be fine. I guess I need another /s now.)