Java > Scala

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/17/11 10:45 PM, Caligo wrote:
> D is already a success, a BIG success.  Walter and Andrei (and the
> amazing community, of course) have created a programming language that
> is light years ahead of C++, Java and Go.

Well if by success you mean "we didn't find totally embarrassing flaws 
in its design yet", then yes, D is a success. If, however, you meant "it 
is used by a large number of major projects", then I'd disagree. We want 
to get there, but we're not already there.

> I don't think you know this, but every high school student who takes a
> computer science course is required to learn Java.  It doesn't stop
> there: in college and university it's all Java, too, and this has been
> going on for almost two decades.  And before Java it was mostly C++, but
> it was phased out.  Unless the course specifically requires a different
> programming language (which is rare), you have to beg to use a different
> programming language (which I did).  Sometimes professors do allow other
> programming languages, but they mostly limit it to C/C++.  In most cases
> students either have to accept it and do what they are told to do, or
> fail the course.  If that's not indoctrination, I don't know what is.
> Also, the reason they restrict education to things like Java and C++ has
> very little to do with the fact that those languages have claimed big
> market share; rather, it's because corporations have had a vested
> interest in universities in the first place and they receive what they
> order.  Just look at what Microsoft has been doing in universities:
> everything from "free" gifts such as free copies of Windows OS and
> Visual Studio Ultimate that cost thousands of dollars to sponsoring
> various kinds of events.  The students who are influenced by such
> tactics, to whom do you think they are going to be loyal to?
>
> The _main point_ here is that if students had been give the choice to
> learn a programming language of their choosing, many of the so called
> "successful" programming languages would not have been so "successful"
> today.  So next time you decide to lecture someone on how popular or
> "successful" Java is, just remember how it got to be so "successful".

I think you're moseying around a solid point without quite nailing it; 
you're still doing a lot better than most.

It's quite amazing how many discussions a la "Java is successful 
because..." completely neglect an essential point: one BILLION dollars 
was poured into Java, a significant fraction of which was put in 
branding, marketing, and PR.

The sheer fact that many of us - even those who actually _lived_ through 
the Java marketing bonanza - tend to forget about it echoes many studies 
in marketing: people believe they are making rational and logical 
choices and refuse to admit and understand they are influenced by 
marketing, even when they fall prey to textbook marketing techniques.

It's easy to forget now, but in the craze of late 1990s, Java was so 
heavily and so successfully advertised, I remember there were managers 
who were desperate to adopt Java, and were convinced it would be a 
strategic disaster if they failed to do so. That weirdly applied even to 
managers who knew nothing about programming - they were as confused as 
people who lined up to buy a Windows 95 CD that they couldn't install 
because they didn't have a computer. It was incredible - a manager would 
tell me how vital Java adoption is, but had no idea what Java really 
was. There were Java commercials on the TV! 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHxtB8zr8UM)

Back then people were made to believe pretty much anything and 
everything good about Java. Some believed Java was small and great for 
limited-memory embedded systems. Some believed there's no real Internet 
without Java. Some believed Java was awesomely fast. Most importantly, a 
lot of people in decision positions believed jumping on the Java 
bandwagon was an absolute necessity. And this gushing of social proof 
became a self-fulfilling prophecy because with many people working on 
Java an entire web of tools, libraries, and applications sprung to life, 
creating offer and demand for more of the same.

Andy Warhol would have loved the stunt. Except jumpstarting this 
gigantic engine wasn't free - it cost Sun one billion dollars. (It could 
be speculated that ultimately this was part of the reason of Sun's 
demise because other companies, not Sun, were able to capitalize on 
Java.) Forgetting the role that that billion dollar played in the 
success of Java would miss on probably the single most important reason, 
and by far.

Right now I'm begging and cajoling Facebook and Microsoft for 5K-10K to 
organize a conference on D in 2012. I'll say D is successful when many 
companies would be honored to offer that level of sponsorship.


Andrei