> and had all the problems of a young language like poor library support for just about everything I know you didn't say otherwise, but for anyone who wasn't t

> and had all the problems of a young language like poor library support for just about everything I know you didn't say otherwise, but for anyone who wasn't there it should be emphasised that many of the deficiencies were core-language deficiencies not just library issues. Java people would blame the customers https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04044.html https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/... https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04048.html https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/... and a rush to market http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/javaorigin.html http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/javaorigin.html (in a self-congratulatory way, of course), but it's also pretty clear that the Java team itself had significantly overestimated how capable and sufficient core Java 1 was. In fact writing out the standard library was evidently an important learning experience there, one which gave birth to the Java-Hater's Handbook https://wiki.c2.com/?EffectiveJava https://wiki.c2.com/?EffectiveJava . And before things eventually got better there was ofc lots of hype first about how Java was a shining jewel of minimalism, and then about how it was a fine language for plain everyday people who had no truck with fancy abstractions.