> I'm not sure I'm buying that. The JVM? Still rocking it 20 years after.
Java may not be my favorite language, but I respect how the language has both progressed and maintained its heritage. It allows the developer to build upon their skills rather than relearning nearly identical skills every time a new technology comes out.
The problem is that this 70 year old industry still behaves in very immature ways. While this may be acceptable when it comes down to attitudes towards technology, the unfortunate side-effect seems to be the adoption of similar attitudes towards people.
Every time someone says something like, "young people are more in tune with the current state of technology," or, "old people are more capable because they have more experience," they are legitimizing prejudice. That's true even when the statement is being made in an attempt to combat prejudice since it is applying generalizations to individuals.
Granted, it is very difficult to shed generalizations. Just look at my comment about the immaturity of the industry. That isn't universally true. Some companies are going to have a younger workforce, some older, some heterogeneous. Some companies are going to have old people working with old technologies, some are going to have young people working with young technologies, but some are going to have the young with old technologies and vice versa. Yet the generalization comes about because of how we frame the industry, which is one where the new replaces the old.
Which brings me back to why I respect Java: it looks both towards the future and back at the past. It is language of growth, rather than a language of revolution. Perhaps this inanimate technology has something to teach us about how we regard people: we should be encouraging growth and advancement rather than treating people as disposable.