@getify 1 year, 5 months ago 1312 views

Java was first released in mid-1995, just 6 months before JS.

By 98, when I went to college, Java was already used for all the first level courses in the CS program.

How did it catch on so quickly (just 3 years) to shift university curriculum, which is usually so slow/behind?

I wonder why Java was so respected and JS was not? Why/how was Java already seen as such a stable and mature language?

Not just Java, other languages (like python) were also released around/near 95, and also seemed to get to "mature" respect status. much quicker.
I bring all this up because my impression of Java in 98 was that it had been around "forever" (as had C++ first developed in 79, but not standardized until 98!), but that's not. true at all. These were all new languages around the same time.
I'm sure the language designs had different merits, and the target applications meant a different perception and reception, but...

it sure seems like the industry (and academics) just decided Java and C++ were the stable mature ones and langs like JS were toys.
BTW, before you assume JS was nascent/immature b/c the web wasn't much of a thing yet, remember that JS was actually released as LiveScript on the server before it was released in a browser. So "server-side JS" was always part of the story, not just Node 15 years later in 2009.
Why didn't "we" push JS on the server the way Java and C++ were pushed in that space?

Why wouldn't a university consider teaching JS alongside Java and C++ (and python), given they were all roughly the same age?
My point is, technologies and ideas don't always win on merits the way we hope/claim. More often than we admit, we just pick winners based on less tangible things like marketing.
There's a lot of tech (frameworks, tools, etc) floating around that are just as mature/stable/useful as the hyped bandwagon stuff, just without the huge community, fancy logos, conferences, and big corporate backers.

They're the "Java" and "C++" of today. They've been chosen.
Through a variety of intentional and accidental effects (like marketing), they're the "winners" right now.

But a lot of equally worthy candidates are floating around waiting for their moment (which may or may not ever come).
Are there any "toys" (tech that's not respected) right now that might accidentally end up ruling the world 25 years from now? What would you place your long-future bets on?

More from Tech

There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10

Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. 2/10

In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10

This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10

Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10

You May Also Like