I do want to point out that bhouston does have a nugget of useful insight in his post: Java lost a lot of credibility in the 3D visualization market in part bec

I do want to point out that bhouston does have a nugget of useful insight in his post: Java lost a lot of credibility in the 3D visualization market in part because it is crazy inefficient to do 3D without value types. C# did very well there with the XNA tool did in part because it had value types and Java didn’t. That's a very interesting point: the lack of this very feature closed Java off from an entire field. That implies that if this feature is implemented, it could open up that field to Java. (And, presumably, others with similar requirements.) I wish that bhouston had expanded on that subject. This, I think, can make the difference between a middlebrow dismissal and an insightful contribution. Instead of framing a comment in terms of what is wrong, frame it in terms of "what would this enable"? You can still make the same fundamental points ("Java lost 3D visualization because it lacked this feature"), but the ensuing discussion can be very different. The post changes from a dismissal to the start of a discussion.