3 ms·

Might be true in 2023, won't argue either way. In ~1995, it was insane. Java startup costs were dozens of seconds, and that's assuming it didn't have to push an

by jerf 4y ago

Might be true in 2023, won't argue either way. In ~1995, it was insane. Java startup costs were dozens of seconds, and that's assuming it didn't have to push anything into swap to do it. The browser needed some sort of language that was always present and didn't have such a staggering footprint, some sort of built-in language that could be parsed and executed without all that. In a perfect world we might have gotten an existing language that fit the bill, but in literally-a-week, it was easier to put something together new inside the browser than to integrate anything into the codebase. The reason for the deadline wasn't that Java was a good idea. You should also bear in mind we're not talking the Java of today, but the Java of not-even-1.0 yet. Java in 1995 wasn't a very good language. Sun was just jamming it everywhere they could, and the browser looked like an appealing target from a marketing point of view. From a technical point of view it was insane. Java grew up, certainly. But it was forced on the world on the back of an enormous marketing budget and a full court press, not the technical merits of Java circa 1995. Many people around here remember the XML push forcing a technology everywhere, even where it doesn't belong, well, the one before that was Java. Completely inorganic.

sitkack 4y ago
Eich is a smart man, and already had experience with Scheme at the time. A subset of Java with a fast interpreter would have been much preferable. Lots of great small languages existed. It makes for a great heroic story, but really it should one of a smart person making a hasty design that basically sht on the future. One of the inspirations for Java was the language "Bob" by David Betz https://github.com/dbetz/bob https://github.com/dbetz/bob Even it would have been a win over JS. https://github.com/dbetz/bob https://github.com/dbetz/bob @Article{Betz:1991:YOT, author = "David Betz", title = "Your own tiny object-oriented language", journal = j-DDJ, volume = "16", type = "PL", number = "9", pages = "26, 28, 30, 32--33, 86, 88--89", month = sep, year = "1991", CODEN = "DDJOEB", ISSN = "1044-789X", bibdate = "Tue Sep 10 09:11:02 MDT 1996", bibsource = "http://www.ddj.com/index/author/index.htm; http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/dr-dobbs-1990.bib", note = "Reprinted in \cite{Betz:1994:YOT}.", acknowledgement = ack-nhfb, classification = "C6140D (High level languages); C6150C (Compilers, interpreters and other processors)", keywords = "Bob; C++; C-like syntax; Class system; Interpreter; Lisp; Tiny object-oriented language", thesaurus = "C listings; High level languages; Object-oriented programming; Program interpreters", } http://www.txbobsc.com/misc/bob-article/bob-article.html http://www.txbobsc.com/misc/bob-article/bob-article.html It shouldn't be excused. Every feature is the potential for an equal or larger detractor.

by jerf 4y ago

sitkack 4y ago

Eich is a smart man, and already had experience with Scheme at the time. A subset of Java with a fast interpreter would have been much preferable. Lots of great small languages existed. It makes for a great heroic story, but really it should one of a smart person making a hasty design that basically sht on the future. One of the inspirations for Java was the language "Bob" by David Betz https://github.com/dbetz/bob https://github.com/dbetz/bob Even it would have been a win over JS. https://github.com/dbetz/bob https://github.com/dbetz/bob @Article{Betz:1991:YOT, author = "David Betz", title = "Your own tiny object-oriented language", journal = j-DDJ, volume = "16", type = "PL", number = "9", pages = "26, 28, 30, 32--33, 86, 88--89", month = sep, year = "1991", CODEN = "DDJOEB", ISSN = "1044-789X", bibdate = "Tue Sep 10 09:11:02 MDT 1996", bibsource = "http://www.ddj.com/index/author/index.htm; http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/dr-dobbs-1990.bib", note = "Reprinted in \cite{Betz:1994:YOT}.", acknowledgement = ack-nhfb, classification = "C6140D (High level languages); C6150C (Compilers, interpreters and other processors)", keywords = "Bob; C++; C-like syntax; Class system; Interpreter; Lisp; Tiny object-oriented language", thesaurus = "C listings; High level languages; Object-oriented programming; Program interpreters", } http://www.txbobsc.com/misc/bob-article/bob-article.html http://www.txbobsc.com/misc/bob-article/bob-article.html It shouldn't be excused. Every feature is the potential for an equal or larger detractor.