> ““Java was excluded from consideration because of the requirement of deploying the JVM and associated libraries along with any program to their production servers. This was an amount of operational complexity and resource overhead that was as undesirable as the unsafety of C or C++.” To me this reads like someone has a chip on their shoulder to demand that Rust be viewed as generally superior instead of merely bein…
Calling their attitudes "insecure" sounds petty to me. The engineering rationale was laid out and makes sense, especially if you apply a little charity and read that the JVM operational complexity was undesirable TO THEM.
If your org has JVM deployments already with experience managing at scale then this argument against Java is not valid.
> If not, then you might use a different language
That's what they decided to do and then got slammed for.
> Regardless though, these feel like non-sequitur, pejorative pot shots to characterize Java, C or C++ in some type generic bad light, as if those tools are a priori conceptually bad, which is a silly point of view.
Maybe try reading their reasons again, and assume they are talking about their org, use case, and engineers and not everyone else.