Java's Cover (2001)
paulgraham.com
Java's Cover (2001)
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#2Note: 2001.
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#3Looks like he was wrong.
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#4Spot on. Java is such a sad language, so verbose, so cumbersome, so inexpressive, radiating such a condescending stupidity. Its pervasiveness today, at the end of fucking 2015, is just depressing.
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#5Wonder what life would have be like if instead of Java, it was Go that appeared in the 90s...
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#6Spot on. Java is such a sad language, so verbose, so cumbersome, so inexpressive, radiating such a condescending stupidity. Its pervasiveness today, at the end of fucking 2015, is just depressing.
You do realize, it's actually pretty good... otherwise it wouldn't be as "pervasive" as it is... (there's hundreds of programming languages, yet Java continues to be one of the most used)
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#7Spot on. Java is such a sad language, so verbose, so cumbersome, so inexpressive, radiating such a condescending stupidity. Its pervasiveness today, at the end of fucking 2015, is just depressing.
You do realize, it's actually pretty good... otherwise it wouldn't be as "pervasive" as it is... (there's hundreds of programming languages, yet Java continues to be one of the most used)
No, I do not realise that. Popularity doesn't equal quality. Summoning Paul Graham again: http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#8Wonder what life would have be like if instead of Java, it was Go that appeared in the 90s...
Concurrency would be a little bit easier. Not much else would have changed.
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#9"the less one knows, the wiser one is"
Re: Java's Cover (2001)
#10"Historically, languages designed for other people to use have been bad: Cobol, PL/I, Pascal, Ada, C++."
In what sense was C++ designed for other people? IIRC Stroustrup came up with it to use on his own research projects.