4 ms·

pg never said Java would be unpopular. He dismissed it much as he dismissed Cobol and Visual Basic. In 1990 Cobol was the most popular programming language in t

pg never said Java would be unpopular. He dismissed it much as he dismissed Cobol and Visual Basic. In 1990 Cobol was the most popular programming language in the world [1]. And in 2000 Visual Basic was the most popular programming language in the world [2]. The essay is about hacker's radar, not Java, anyway. Personally I loved his list of other technologies he has ignored. [1] http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/lawlis/m.htm http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/lawlis/m.htm [2] http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Visual+Basic+Programmers+Journal+Celebrates+Its+Ninth+Anniversary.-a058522477 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Visual+Basic+Programmers+Journ...

cdmckay 14y ago
From the article: "So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language." I think that pretty clearly says that (at that time) he didn't think it'd be very popular.
- briantrice 14y ago
  So, you think popularity is success? I think that when Paul says "success", he means "winning" in an old sense that "those who adopt X have a better chance at winning" whatever it is. Just because the language is widely used doesn't mean it's contributing to the success of the adopters.
  - thebluesky 14y ago
    So how would you propose measuring "contributing to the success of the adopters" ? It seems that there is no way to either prove or disprove the statement hence any statement about the "success" of a language could be claimed as valid/true.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>pg never said Java would be unpopular He did: >So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language.
- dcminter 14y ago
  Popular and successful are not the same thing. I could go through and dispute his points one by one in traditional internet style but to do so would be to miss the fundamental difference in viewpoint. A piece of art can be considered aesthetically unsuccessful while still being a massive commercial hit. The liberal hacker will generally consider Java (if not the JVM) a failure. The conservative software developer will generally consider Java (and the JVM) massively successful. See Yegge on the liberal/conservative distinction: https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/posts/KaSKeg4vQtz https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/posts/KaSKeg4v... So if PG was considering the market success of this "stinker" then no, his prediction was clearly a failure. But if you consider the aesthetic success? Well, Java certainly isn't cool in certain circles. Personally I like Java and consider it successful - but I don't think PG's article is prima facie a prophetic failure.
  - kaffiene 14y ago
    "Popular and successful are not the same thing." look up "no true scotsman" or "begging the question"

cdmckay 14y ago

From the article: "So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language." I think that pretty clearly says that (at that time) he didn't think it'd be very popular.

briantrice 14y ago
So, you think popularity is success? I think that when Paul says "success", he means "winning" in an old sense that "those who adopt X have a better chance at winning" whatever it is. Just because the language is widely used doesn't mean it's contributing to the success of the adopters.
- thebluesky 14y ago
  So how would you propose measuring "contributing to the success of the adopters" ? It seems that there is no way to either prove or disprove the statement hence any statement about the "success" of a language could be claimed as valid/true.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

>pg never said Java would be unpopular He did: >So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language.

dcminter 14y ago
Popular and successful are not the same thing. I could go through and dispute his points one by one in traditional internet style but to do so would be to miss the fundamental difference in viewpoint. A piece of art can be considered aesthetically unsuccessful while still being a massive commercial hit. The liberal hacker will generally consider Java (if not the JVM) a failure. The conservative software developer will generally consider Java (and the JVM) massively successful. See Yegge on the liberal/conservative distinction: https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/posts/KaSKeg4vQtz https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/posts/KaSKeg4v... So if PG was considering the market success of this "stinker" then no, his prediction was clearly a failure. But if you consider the aesthetic success? Well, Java certainly isn't cool in certain circles. Personally I like Java and consider it successful - but I don't think PG's article is prima facie a prophetic failure.
- kaffiene 14y ago
  "Popular and successful are not the same thing." look up "no true scotsman" or "begging the question"