On: PG on Java - comments from 2001

[quanticle]

You know, a lot of PG's points are correct, despite Java's success. Java was aimed low - it was pitched as a way to write good enterprise software without expert developers. It is bureaucratic - many times the only way to get the object you want is to submit the proper forms to the object's factory. Suits love Java because Java programs can be described with wall-covering UML diagrams.

The fact that all of these turned out to be reasons for Java's success rather than its failure doesn't undermine the validity of the criticisms.

[kenjackson → quanticle]

But wasn't Java originally targeted at embedded devices, like settop boxes, and NOT enterprise apps?

And C++ was originally written to help Bjarne, not for a user base. It was accidental that "C with Classes" caught on at all.

[bad_user → quanticle]

People forget Sun's marketing campaigns or of the other commercial vendors, which sold tools and support for a platform that badly needed it.

The marketing around Java contributed more to its success than anything else.