4 ms·

I believe there were alternatives at the time, but expensive. Java was free and also syntactically compatible with C++. I think that rather these properties (th

• zabzonk 1y ago
  > syntactically compatible with C++ Not. And certainly not semantically.
  • Pet_Ant 1y ago
    That’s just obtuse. Compare Lisp, Forth, APL, Prolog, Ada, or Fortran. Java is just C++ with a few twists. You can literally write code that will compile in both.
    • js8 1y ago
      That's exactly how I meant it. Another alternative to Java at the time was Smalltalk, with different syntax. Choosing C++ syntax for Java was clearly a marketing move (as it was for C++) - we shouldn't underestimate network effect of familiar syntax. I think Java succeeded for the same reasons C++ succeeded - built on familiar syntax, reasonably free and "supported by" a large company. Java being a decent language is a consequence of its success more than of its original design.
      • igouy 1y ago
        Free as in beer, in contrast to proprietary Smalltalk.
    • zabzonk 1y ago
      > You can literally write code that will compile in both. An example, please.
      • Pet_Ant 1y ago
        int fibonacci(int n) { if (n <= 0) return 0; if (n == 1) return 1; int a = 0, b = 1, temp; for (int i = 2; i <= n; i++) { temp = a + b; a = b; b = temp; } return b; } ...if only the return type was "Crow" then you could .eat() that...
        • zabzonk 1y ago
          That will not compile with javac, as it is not a method of a class.
          • int_19h 1y ago
            Java has "unnamed classes" now which makes this work.
          • Pet_Ant 1y ago
            That code will it just needs to be in the proper context. No the same file will not compile, even if only because javac needs files to end with .java .