351–360 of 476 posts
In the beginning JavaScript was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
By who? You? Because there’s tens (hundreds) of thousands of programmers and thousands of companies working on JavaScript. Just because many here consider JavaScript bad doesn’t mean everyone does. JavaScript has many problems, but it’s not “widely regarded” as bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly - rubyscript would have been just as hated as javascript; something like scheme or some other well designed language would have been better.
I think we would just have got more Java applets. The idea of a programming language accessible to everyone did contribute a lot to its success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class files contain compiled bytecode, not source code like shell scripts do. “Script” implies human-readable source code. Java bytecode is binary, a kind of portable machine language.
Does this mean java .class falls in the middle of scripts and native executables? Is this analogy correct? For example, I think of native executable as Microsoft Word where you can doubleclick and launch it. Whereas with .class you have to run it on top of a jvm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember, Sun needed Netscape to make Java successful. Today Java is a server-side technology, but that's not how it started its life. Java started its life as a technology to build more powerful web pages (using embedded applets). Sun needed Netscape to bundle Java into its browser. So if Netscape wanted to leverage the hype that existed around Java at that time then Sun had to let them.
>Java started its life as a technology to build more powerful web pages I'm pretty sure Java came from the work James Gosling did on Oak, which was mostly used for embedded systems. I remember a lot of the early documentation being OO designs for devices like microwaves and CD players.
Yes, when it was conceived it was indeed intended for embedded systems but when it was released it was intended as a tech for building client-side smarts into web pages.
Java was originally conceived as Sun's response to General Magic's intelligent agent technology. Microsoft's response to General Magic was Microsoft Bob, because they saw General Magic's social interface as a threat to Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class files contain compiled bytecode, not source code like shell scripts do. “Script” implies human-readable source code. Java bytecode is binary, a kind of portable machine language.
Of course, there's murky things like Python which make bytecode compiled forms behind the scene. But there's a lot of magic involved in transforming Java to class files, and then there's a lot of further magic in resolving, loading, and eventually executing classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like "requires compilation" is a good first order differentiator. And "has a somewhat sane type system" is another.
Well, C++ can be interpreted (sort of, see CINT) and can certainly be semi-transparently jitted (see cling). Although it's certainly not designed for that!
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which became dominant for a while, but cgi scripts on the server-side were also hot. Enter Perl and PhP server-side. Then there was JSP, ASP, and ColdFusion, all server-side. Rails! Also server-side. Then back to JS.
Rails is like 10 years later tho... everything else you mentioned was already around by 2000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody outside of developers knows what C# is, though. Java was one of the biggest buzzwords of the late 90's.
That's true, it's more like naming your language "BlockchainScript". I could totally see someone doing that today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So implementing and pushing Java in Android was a torpedo against Sun? Interesting logic.
Implementing it from scratch as a skunkworks reverse engineering project designed to never need to pay license fees upstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class files contain compiled bytecode, not source code like shell scripts do. “Script” implies human-readable source code. Java bytecode is binary, a kind of portable machine language.
Does this mean java .class falls in the middle of scripts and native executables? Is this analogy correct? For example, I think of native executable as Microsoft Word where you can doubleclick and launch it. Whereas with .class you have to run it on top of a jvm.