Lame article. One of the strengths of Java is the very conservatism that the author bashes. Generics may have broken backwards compatibility if you opt to use t

Lame article. One of the strengths of Java is the very conservatism that the author bashes. Generics may have broken backwards compatibility if you opt to use that language feature, but the VM and compiler preserved forward compatibility of all previously-written code, an extremely important and considerate design goal. Just ask all the Python developers who now have to port their 2.x code to run on the V3 engine. And what is the big benefit of that porting effort? "A much saner string processing model based on Unicode." Oh, you mean like the one Java has had since its 1.0 release? This article, like most language-cheerleading flamebait, shows a deep misunderstanding about what has kept Java so popular for so long. Keep breaking compatibility, Pythonistas -- you'll be able to brag about the nimbleness of your language on blogs, and you will see your language continue to be passed over by developers who don't want to periodically rewrite their applications for marginal benefit.