Most of these points apply to a lot of languages en vogue today. I'm not quite sure what to make of that in light of these points, but thought I'd point that out.
One interpretation is that pg was hilariously wrong in 2001, and that similar arguments in 2022 are unlikely to hold water in and of themselves. The particulars might be true in any single instance, but pg’s qualities for success are obviously not necessary.
You're right. What this article fails to anticipate is that, "Hacker's Radar", won't be what matters. It takes great pains to make clear that it's not about Java, but hacker radar and how that leads him to reject things like Java. Well, in the era we live in now, hacker radar has taken a back seat, to bean counters, pitchmen, and CEO's blabbing endlessly on Twitter, and while all of them claim to be Tech-CEO's and pitchmen, etc... The truth is once those people take over, the tech will never be their priority, with bean counters it's always about the beans.
Thank god solving customer problems has taken over the tech-ceo job, starting with tech is usually a bad idea, even when it is innovative (crypto-ponzi as an example)
Well that's interesting, because you and I see things exactly opposite. In the era I started, before this article was written, there were, in many cases, no customers. The users and the creators were frequently the same people. New technologies had much more time to be implemented before they were actually brought to market and productized. Nowadays new technology is saddled with unrealistic hype and expectation before anything is implemented at all. We're probably just going to be in disagreement about that point. As to your point about business people caring about the needs, and concerns of their customers, I have to be in agreement with you about that.
Reading the points made me think of Go in a few cases.