The essay is about hacker's radar, not Java, anyway. Personally I loved his list of other technologies he has ignored.
[1] http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/lawlis/m.htm
[2] http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Visual+Basic+Programmers+Journ...
The essay is about hacker's radar, not Java, anyway. Personally I loved his list of other technologies he has ignored.
[1] http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/lawlis/m.htm
[2] http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Visual+Basic+Programmers+Journ...
I think that pretty clearly says that (at that time) he didn't think it'd be very popular.
He did:
>So far, Java seems like a stinker to me. I've never written a Java program, never more than glanced over reference books about it, but I have a hunch that it won't be a very successful language.
I could go through and dispute his points one by one in traditional internet style but to do so would be to miss the fundamental difference in viewpoint. A piece of art can be considered aesthetically unsuccessful while still being a massive commercial hit.
The liberal hacker will generally consider Java (if not the JVM) a failure.
The conservative software developer will generally consider Java (and the JVM) massively successful.
See Yegge on the liberal/conservative distinction: https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/posts/KaSKeg4v...
So if PG was considering the market success of this "stinker" then no, his prediction was clearly a failure. But if you consider the aesthetic success? Well, Java certainly isn't cool in certain circles.
Personally I like Java and consider it successful - but I don't think PG's article is prima facie a prophetic failure.