From the article:
"The agile folks luuuuurve them some dynamic languages, because it enables an incredibly short development cycle.
...
Academia luuuuurves it some functional languages, and with a few exceptions, academia is where functional languages live and die. (Some exceptions: Haskell, Erlang, Mathematica.)"
Unfortunately, while this is meant as a "witty" dig at some folk's supposed knee-jerk reactions, this is pretty much indicative of the level of discourse in this post.
Saying java's "more relevant than [we] think" is sort of a straw man. It's relevant, it's just many developers don't like java: its syntax, its limitations, the java "culture" that surrounds it, the fact that many of us must know and use it to be relevant in the marketplace.
As for the argument that it's worth it because it's just not that complicated so you can explain it to a ten year old in an elevator... is that really what we're supposed to aim for? Do we really want to give java a 3rd grade gold star because it's in that sweet spot between assembly (hurts brain) and scala (hurts brain).
I don't know. I sort of like to go for the epiphany that comes with finally getting scala (like really getting it) or Lisp macros or monads or etc. You're right that the "cool kid" mentality that attaches itself to the new shiny language is annoying, but I'll take it over the very average mentality that attaches itself to java in that article.
Language syntax hardly matters at all. It's just a matter of personal taste most of the time. It's a useless boring discussion.
Many languages seem to be converging on using the jvm as a runtime, which makes java pretty damn relevant.
This might be an unpopular opinion but I would say that the preposition "Java is irrelevant" is incorrect immediately; it seems unnecessary to write articles refuting an opinion such as that.
Yep, dynamic and functional languages will never succeed because of their complex syntax and features. That explains why nobody writes software in C++.
The only takeaway I got from this is that I'm still right to prefer Perl.
1. Java was cool. 2. Then Java was cool and useful. 3. Then Java was just useful.
Lamenting the fact that #3 has happened is what's irrelevant because most languages never even make it to #2.
What I want to know is: ignoring the vendor lock-in part (and yes, that's huge) and the very Microsofty way that you have to do everything once you go that route, how does C# factor into the discussion?
The CLR is clearly inspired by the JVM, and the latest iterations of the C# language itself have added a lot of syntax to achieve various dynamic techniques. Yet, sometimes, I feel like I'd be better off with the Java platform and a dynamic JVM language.
[Python, Ruby. Haskell. Erlang] "they’re keeping the parts of Java that run well and mixing it with impenetrable syntax." ... honestly???
Computer Science is dead....it's now Cult of Personality, and Popular Memes that determine the direction of technology. Sad.
Had the author made a cogent point, the article might be relevant. Maybe it's entertaining to some.
1. Right click page -> View Source 2. Read Javascript.
I really can't reply to much of this without a wholesale repeat of things I wrote in my blog years ago, but one thing I wanted to point out is that to my knowledge, languages like Ruby were not designed to "replace" Java.
Like most disruptive technologies, they were aimed at specialized niches where "worse is better." Ruby seemed to start off as more of a replacement for shell scripting. If anything, it was aimed at Perl, not Java. Rails was aimed at replacing PHP, not J2EE. As they matured (Ruby was 11 years old when Rails was introduced!), they spread out organically.
Now that I say it like that, let's put hat over heart and spend a moment reflecting on the fact that Java followed the same path. It was designed to replace C for embedded applications, then to embed active content in web pages, then it gradually spread and mutated into the cubicle farm fertilizer it is today.
With a little creativity you can take the OP and change it so that the author is ranting about the drawbacks of Java and its dynamic memory management and why neophytes luuuuuurv them some design patterns. It would have been a fine comp.lang.C++ news post in 1991.