> Learning to use the Swing API properly may be difficult, but would it really be easier if the Swing developers invented a new language to write it in? That's

> Learning to use the Swing API properly may be difficult, but would it really be easier if the Swing developers invented a new language to write it in? That's a first-class example of sunk cost fallacy. Sure, everyone can understand that the field won't move from Java soon. But discarding legitimate criticism of the object-oriented paradigm because "people already learned it anyway" is a surefire way to make sure new languages aren't better than old ones. Also I believe that the author had a myopic way of the field. Sure, new enterprise languages don't appear every day, but they do appear (hello, Rust), and when they do, lots of their innovation can be traced to smaller experiments, "failed" languages and ideas written on a napkin by people that won't stop thinking beyond Java. And old languages don't die, but they certainly go past their prime (hello Cobol), and I'm quite happy that they do. As for the final paragraph, it got invalidated completely by the groundbreaking innovation of LSPs. As it stands now, most new small languages communities already write their own LSP, and IDE creators usually stop at the client. Granted, the article is 18 years old. In my opinion, and with the benefit of hindsight, the author couldn't project as far in the future of our industry as the Jetbrains CEO did.