On 18 April 2016 at 09:30, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Tim Delaney > <timothy.c.dela...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I also wouldn't describe Java as a > > "perfectly good language" - it is at best a compromise language that just > > happened to be heavily promoted and accepted at the right time. > > > > Python is *much* closer to my idea of a perfectly good language. > > "Java" was originally four related, but separate, concepts: a source > language, a bytecode, a sandboxing system, and one other that I can't > now remember.
I was very specifically referring to Java the language. The JVM is fairly nice, especially with the recent changes specifically aimed at more easily supporting dynamic languages. Speaking of JVM changes - I had to take over support of a chat applet developed by a contractor built on Java 1.0. We just could not get it to work reliably (this was for the original Foxtel web site - I remember trying to keep it up and running while Richard Fidler was doing a promoted chat session ...). Then Java 1.1 was released and what a huge improvement that was. Tim Delaney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
